SWAT cops to ask for IDs from everyone in Arkansas town

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   
SWAT cops to ask for IDs from everyone in Arkansas town




There isn’t a lot to do in Paragould, Arkansas, but residents of the town of barely 25,000 seem to have no problem finding trouble. Now in order to curb the rising crime rate, the city is proposing heavily armed police patrol the streets on foot.

At a town hall meeting on Thursday, Mayor Mike Gaskill and Police Chief Todd Stovall endorsed a plan to send cops dressed in full-fledged SWAT gear and equipped with AR-15s into downtown Paragould starting in 2013.



Read more at:

rt.com...


Ok, these lines says it all:




"They may not be doing anything but walking their dog," added Mayor Gaskill, "but they're going to have to prove it." and "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," Stovall said, according to the Paragould Daily Press. "It allows us to do what we're fixing to do.""




If those lines don't scare the crap out of you then I don't know what will.

To those statements I give you this, Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Benjamin Franklin, 1775

Yes, if crime is up that much then something has to be done, perhaps more police patrolling - but is it necessary for armed to the teeth officers on the streets? Should the police in their patrols be able to identify those who intend to start trouble - shouldn't officers be trying to interact with the public in a more friendly fashion?


and the other thing - you have a dog on a leach and are walking - isn't that walking your dog? what is there to prove?





posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by MidnightTide
 

Clearly the answer is to walk your dog with a few of your neighbors brandishing M-16s.

You can wave to the cops as they look the other way and drive by.

edit on 18-12-2012 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
my comments from a similar thread

Just getting citizens used to seeing armed to the hilt cops on the streets. And all of this for a population of 25,000.

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Somebody needs a better police Chief and police department.


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.


www.paragouldpolice.org...

I think there has to be a better way to lower the crime rate.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Maybe they'd suspect you walking your dog to the illegal dog fighting venue, yes while walking your 5 inch high chihuahua hahaha >.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
I was doing alright not getting freaked out too bad about current events, but all of that just changed.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
The simple facts are that the police are way overstepping the constitutional boundaries which restrain them from tyranising the citizens....
the laws apply to cops too.......
maybe they should try the Kenesaw remedy...every able bodied male must own a weapon....crime rate very low there now.....



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Keep in mind, there is no law that may be written that requires you to show identification. You are protected equally under the 4th Amendment right to privacy and securing in your papers, person and effects and the 5th Amendment right to not self incriminate and remain silent. The Supreme Court through countless challenges have reiterated this right in several landmark cases. Only fools comply with the goons under the guise that they've nothing to hide. This merely enables the incrementalist creep of removing our God given rights. Exercise your rights and do not comply!



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
The are training.

Honing thier sheephearding skillz.
edit on 18-12-2012 by davjan4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Testing 1,2, 3
ML Beta Test.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Its called Acclimation, and Once you are acclimatized, thats when they will start doing door to door sweeps



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPECULUM
Its called Acclimation, and Once you are acclimatized, thats when they will start doing door to door sweeps


They won't need to do door-to door sweeps because people will happily have Verizon spy units in their homes.

Link to ATS Thread Re: Verizon's Spying DVR's



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by MidnightTide
 


I agree. We do need more police simply walking a beat. When we took them off a walking beat and put them in patrol cars our crime rates severely escalated.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 

There is a big difference between Officer Friendly in his blue uniform walking a beat and an armed combat patrol walking the streets. One is indicative of a police presence and the other is indicative of a police state.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
Keep in mind, there is no law that may be written that requires you to show identification. You are protected equally under the 4th Amendment right to privacy and securing in your papers, person and effects and the 5th Amendment right to not self incriminate and remain silent.


At one time, that might have been somewhat true, however, things are not as they once were.

Hiibel vs Sixth put an end to that. If a state has a "well constructed" stop and identify statute, you can indeed be charged with obstruction for failure to identify or present identification if you have it. And Arkansas is one of those states.

The Fourth Amendment issue was long ago dealt with in Terry v Ohio. It was ruled that having to identify was not infringing on your Fourth amendment rights, and Hiibel dealt with the Fifth argument.

So, yep, if you've got it, you have to present it. If asked, you must give your name, but no more. You also have to allow a pat down. That might be arguable later, there are specific requirements for a valid Terry stop, but the issue is that the officer can just lie his or their asses off and meet them. It's not worth the effort. If they want to Terry stop you and get a Hiibel ID, just go with it.

And then remove the mayor from office, and the police chief. And the sheriff. At the next election.

Even with me not trusting most cops, this one is one of those things it's not worth getting into it over. A cop can ALWAYS charge you with some mopery, that's why mopery laws are on the books. Loitering is one of them. It's deliberately constructed to allow an officer a reasonable rationale to stop and inspect anyone he/she just doesn't like the smell of. Like 'disturbing the peace'.

Mopery will ALWAYS give them rationale to fake a valid Terry stop. Always. It will never, ever fail in court, unless the officer's a total assclown and you've got Melvin Belli's ghost for a lawyer.

Now, if you really wanted to game this, you could get dozens of ACLU lawyers with wires and cameras to walk the streets looking for the occasional cop who would be stupid enough to actually lie his/her/their ass off, get recorded doing it, and then testify to the lie in court, or do such poorly done Terry stops that you could bring charges, maybe set the cop's immunity aside and rape him in civil court as an example. But it won't happen.

edit to add:

You might have more luck getting some guys to dress in brown shirts and march along near, but not close to the AR15 guys and sing "Deutschland Uber Alles", sort of like a mariachi band.
edit on 18-12-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   
So the mayor is worried about people threatening and victemizing their citizens and his response is to send out heavily armed people to intimidate everyone? I hope the aclu steps in and sues the mayor. If he can't find competent cops who posess the mental faculties to actually investigate crime, its his problem. The economy is terrible right now and i'm sure qualified applicates could easily be found to create a legitimate police department. Small time control freaks are a dime a dozen. No way the tax payers should be forced to fund his "Big Boss" fantasy.

Something like this happened in another small town only it was the police chief that went into control freak mode and not the mayor. The chief "fired" the newly elected mayor and most his police force who wouldn't go along with his control freak fantasy. It resulted in him and his few remaining goons driving around town like a recreation of boss hog from dukes of hazards.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


Hence the word SIMPLY in my post...(capitalized here for your edification).



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Check this out...it is an answer....


Link to GranCops

edit on 19-12-2012 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)




new topics
top topics
 
6

log in

join