NYers to NYPD: 'I Do Not Consent to Being Searched'

The Village Voice ^ | July 21st, 200 | by Chisun Lee

[stacytec]

We live in strange times. I don't like the thought of being blown to bits one bit, but I'd rather be blown up than wake up one day to discover that I'm living in a police state. Don't get me wrong, I respect a police presence but if this random search stuff starts getting out of hand, I'll be the first to scream 1984. There is a fine line between the order that Locke had in mind with security by the state and the "freedom is slavery" that Orwell could foresee in war fed paranoia.

[Not A Snowbird]

What does the stadium security do when you're legally carrying?
Do you inform them, first, or do they just discover it and ask to see your CCW?

I don't have a concealed carry permit, so it's never been an issue. I'm not sure what they'd do in that situation. Hypothetically, I'd declare it. This is Seattle, after all. :-)

[Gabz]

You are trying to say that the city of New York owns nightclubs?????

Not at all - just that Mayor Bloominidiot doesn't understand the difference between private entities and public places.

[RedRover]

The police, in fact, have made random searches of cars entering the Lincoln and Holland tunnels so that has already happened.
These searches did not become institutionalized. The searches were not extended to the city's streets, parks, and apartment houses.
New York is a city of people just waiting to become litigants. Everyone "knows their rights" and knows a lawyer. The picture you paint of New York City police becoming the Gestapo is not realistic. The Village Voice used that argument to oppose every move that Rudy Guiliani made for 8 years and would gladly have driven him from office if they could. New York would have been the poorer if they had.
My opinion is that, as citizens, we have both rights and responsibilities. One responsibility, in my opinion, is to cooperate with law enforcement--especially since we don't have the kind of security system that exists in London and New York is still on the terrorists' hit list.

[68 grunt]

... People cannot seem to decipher the difference between fighting for the same cause during war and a attack on civil liberties during peace time. ...

This war is not only without particular nations to fight, it is also without defined, envisioned or even expected victory.

[savedbygrace]

I think what has everyone panties in a bunch is plain old fashion poor choice of wording, by using the word "RANDOM".

No, it isn't a poor choice of words. It's a poor choice of tactics. And, IMO, it's a violation of the Constitution.

Random is the correct word to describe the searches, because they ARE random.

They want to help stop this stuff, but if we are just going to argue back and forth, then guess who wins? Yup the terrorists.

The terrorists will win if we don't find them and kill them. They are committed to either kill us or convert us. Random searches will not find them, other than one or two by chance here and there.

[beltfed308]

The terrorists will win if we don't find them and kill them. They are committed to either kill us or convert us. Random searches will not find them, other than one or two by chance here and there.

I agree and go one step further. Every time a our way of life is changed due to "random" searches or other invasive measures. They win a small victory.

[Oberon]

If I have a reasonable suspicious that a crime (terrorism) may be committed and I see someone acting suspicious in the vacinity, I can shake them down for my own safety as well as the general publics safety.

Well, if you've spotted someone who's acting suspicious, you've already established something the random search does not incorporate, and that is 'probable cause.' It's a whole different kettle of fish from just walking up to anybody in the street and requiring them to let you search their bag.

[The_Media_never_lie]

Sorry, but how is a random search going to change my life? I don't understand.

[durasell]

It isn't going to change your life. However, some believe that they are on the barricades facing down a snarling American government that is just looking for the opportunity to limit individual rights and re-cast society into a brutal totalitarian state that would make 1984 look like a progressive summer camp for the children of rich hippie parents.

[CyberAnt]

During WWII - we rationed everything (practically) - do you see anything being rationed today ..??

During WWII - we had lights out at 9 pm on the west coast - and we were required to have blackout shades on our windows - do you see that requirement in place today ..??

During WWII - my dad was an air raid warden; his job was to stop any vehicle which was driving around during the air raid. He worked the street where we lived and an adjoining street. He was a citizen volunteer - do you see any of that in place today ..??

And .. nobody thought their civil liberties were being violated - while we were trying to protect ourselves against an attack.

[af_vet_rr]

The terrorists will win if we don't find them and kill them.

They also win if they change our society from one of freedom-loving to one of a police state. The majority of countries these terrorists either come from, or are funded or controlled from, are some form of dictatorship (whether it's dressed up as royalty or whatever).

Freedom and democracy are two of the biggest threats the terrorists and their masters in the Middle East face. That is why they are doing everything they can to undermine the democratic process in Iraq, whether it be killing Iraqis going to vote, or who are officials, elected or otherwise.

Unfortunately, in the United States they have plenty of accidental allies who would love to see a police state take over.

I'm not just talking about the Hillary Clintons pushing for more cameras all over the place, as she's done this week, because there are plenty of people on the right who want a police state as well (not just the ones happy that the PATRIOT Act is now permanent either). As a matter of fact, there were some in our government pushing such extreme measures after 9/11, that if they were proposed by Bill Clinton during his time as President, Republicans would have been going absolutely nuts, but because they were proposed under a Republican President, Republicans actually considered them.

[af_vet_rr]

I agree and go one step further. Every time a our way of life is changed due to "random" searches or other invasive measures. They win a small victory.

I should have read a few posts further, you said in two sentences what it took me a paragraph and several more to say.

[af_vet_rr]

It isn't going to change your life. However, some believe that they are on the barricades facing down a snarling American government that is just looking for the opportunity to limit individual rights and re-cast society into a brutal totalitarian state that would make 1984 look like a progressive summer camp for the children of rich hippie parents.

None of us here speaking out against more government powers, more searches, etc., think we are "on the barricades facing down a snarling American government".

I can't speak for the others, but I'm speaking out against these kinds of things for my grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

You see, I have 20-40 years left to live theoretically. All of these incremental changes, they are just that, incremental. I won't notice them that much.

But a descendent of mine, 80 years from now, if they could experience life in America of the 1980s or 1990s, compared to life in America in 2080, they are going to wonder "why'd you let us down, why'd you let the statists get control of this country, why'd you let them take our freedom and our privacy?".

[durasell]

Everything changes and always had. I once sat on a plane next to an old woman who thought the loss of silverware and linen napkins on cross country flights was a tragedy.

Not to compare the trivial with the important, but everything really does change, always.

[savedbygrace]

I agree with you 100%.

[stacytec]

That was a world war against global powers. There was the very real possibility that the United States would have been invaded. People didn't mind sacrificing and there was an expectation that at some point things would end and society would return to normal. The current enemy is a tiny, unseen force who's primary weapon is fear through attacks on the populace. How can the government ever claim that this enemy has been defeated if it can't even be seen? At what point do security measures get relaxed? In my opinion, the war against terror will be never ending. It's up to the citizens to make sure that government doesn't overstep the constitution in it's quest to protect the public.

[CyberAnt]

And the WOT is a "world war against global powers". The fact they don't wear a military uniform, but the uniform of a religion.

"The current enemy is a tiny, unseen force" .. I don't agree with your assessment that the terrorists are "tiny" or "unseen". These people are in 70 nations - that's not "tiny". And .. everywhere they go DEATH follows .. that's not "unseen".

While the WOT will not have an ending as in the past - where there is surrender - it will be neutered to the point that people will begin to realize this is NOT a major issue anymore. I believe it can reach this point. How long it will take .. I don't have that answer .. but you're right .. we - the citizens - have to make sure that we are protected but not denied our Constitutional rights.

[af_vet_rr]

In my opinion, the war against terror will be never ending. It's up to the citizens to make sure that government doesn't overstep the constitution in it's quest to protect the public.

Because this war will never end, the biggest danger to the USA, is in fact, us.

The terrorists can kill 3,000 or 3,000,000 Americans, and it won't destroy the USA.

Americans, on the other hand, can allow the government to remove more and more of our freedom and privacy (to "protect" us), and that will destroy the USA.

[freedom moose]

My fear here is that if this creates huge lines, the terrorists can just wait until they are in the middle of the line and detonate right there, if they are truly suicide bombers.
I unfortunately had the same thought. Other than being completely disgusting on constitutional grounds, these new rules offer a new target also.