Spend $16.99 so you can wear this to your grave
Posted on 07/22/2005 11:06:07 AM PDT by BigFinn
Reacting to the NYPD's announcement Thursday afternoon that police would randomly—but routinely—search the bags of commuters, one concerned New Yorker quickly created a way for civil libertarians to make their views black-and-white. In a few outraged moments, local immigrant rights activist Tony Lu designed t-shirts bearing the text, "i do not consent to being searched." The minimalist protest-wear can be purchased here, in various styles and sizes. (Lu will not get a cut. The shirts' manufacture, sale, and shipment, will be handled by the online retailer. Lu encourages budget-conscious New Yorkers to make their own and wear them everywhere.)
Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly had announced the legally obvious—that New Yorkers are free to decline a search and "turn around and leave." But Lu, who is a lawyer at Urban Justice Center, warned that even well-intentioned cops could interpret people's natural nervousness or anger as "reasonable suspicion." The possibility of unjustified interrogation and even arrest is real, Lu said.
Although police promised they would not engage in racial profiling, Lu said that, as with all street-level policing, people of color and poor immigrants would be particularly vulnerable, especially if encounters lead to arrests.
Yeah, cuz terrorists are so easily discouraged. Anyway, what's to stop someone from exploding himself while he's waiting in line to be searched? Nothing.
Pardon me saying so, but you're one rude SOB. It's a good thing you went into the Marine Corps, because the Corps really need knuckleheads with swingin' d!cks to take beachheads and stuff that frankly I'm not tough enough to do. You've proven you're top-notch at taking orders without thinking. Good job, Marine.
Did you by chance hear they guy filling in for Rush Limbaugh today? Rodger Hedgecock (sp?) - I heard him ranting about law enforcement in this country and how they are all under trained and always want more money - I didn't hear his rationale. He was talking about the shooting in LA where the man used his 2 year old as a sheild and they were both killed, he was calling the police idiots and how they needed to take a lesson from the police in London because of how they handled the shooting today. Comparing apples and oranges but I was pretty ticked off listening to him.
When there is a suicide/homicide bombing (either packpack or vehicle) at a school/hospital/shopping mall/supermarket (ie. Lodi sleeper cell)...will you consent to mandatory searches/1 mile vehicle exclusion zones(you walk in)around all these places also?
I think you are wrong. If you can't ride the public subway, then maybe you can't use the public parks, or walk on the public sidewalk either. You are basically saying that it within the consitution to make one housebound if they don't agree to random searches, and I don't think it is.
No, doesn't work for me. My point here is more along the line with post #186... if the NYPD is not allowed to search everyone then they can't search the nervous ME youth with the long bulky coat. I live on an island here in Washington State and we are subject to random searches to ride the ferry. If we were not in this terrorism battle I would not like it one bit but as it is better safe than sorry.
And not I don't think the war on terror is just an excuse to take our rights away from us.
I prefer my version.
My thoughts entirely. I don't know why good American men and women are being killed overseas so Iraqis can be "free," yet anyone with bad intent could merrily waltz over the Quebec/Maine border while good American citizens consent to having their persons examined in order to get on a subway train.
Kinda makes one wonder how many of those denizens are paid to post their acquiescent views in order to assist in the manufacture of public consent.
Some of them may simply be scared dupes. But I suspect many are a fifth column for the globalists.
A sincere thank you for replying in the spirit of this debate.
IMO, that argument doesn't answer the randomness question.
See my post #49, and you'll see I'm not saying searches are a 5th Amendment violation. Only random searches.
I have been following your posts on this thread. As a product of 3 generations of NYPD, I must thank you for your defense of the rank and file of New York's finest.
"No, I'm sorry Lieutenant, I can't locate anything hidden in his pants."
Quote: Actually, they work really well for concealed carry.
I guess I could stomach them in cammo colors. Just not lime green or pink.
Look, I live in NYC, ride the subway and have no trouble at all with the searches.
You can spend your whole life saying, "this is what they can do. This is a weak spot..." or you can assume the cops and others are doing their best to keep these idiots from bombing us.
Too funny - I know cops do watch COPS - but it is usually so that they can critique what the cops on the show are doing wrong.
The next arguement will be that because it is a public road they should be able to search your vehicle or you cannot use it. Slippery slope and people here are eating it up.
LOL. Good one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.