why not ban guns tooo while they're at it??? wait...
Posted on 09/05/2010 12:34:49 AM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - Nashville police are trying to protect a relatively new law that allows them to ban gang members from certain areas.
In response to growing concerns that gangs were disrupting the safety and quality of life of Tennessee's citizens, the state enacted a nuisance law in 2009 that would allow police to file civil suits against gang members. Those suits would ban known gang members from hanging out in certain areas, patronizing certain businesses or associating with certain people.
Violating those civil orders could then become a criminal charge.
(Excerpt) Read more at newschannel9.com ...
Our elected officials are so smart, ain't they?
Ok... the cops are failing to deal with them criminally, so they are now going to sue them in civil court?!??!
WTH---Over?!?!?!
Using the latest technology, simply micro-stamp the complete text of the ordinance on a .45 hollow point, line up the sights on the individual in need of “clarification” and and squeeze the delivery button/trigger. Viola! A functional and permanent ban “ for the good of the collective”. Statists everywhere should approve.
Depending on details this might not even be constitutional.
Oh, THAT’ll work. As usual, the handgun and rifle are cast aside.
Exile as justice was generally upon pain of death if the person ever came back. Otherwise, it’s useless as a form of punishment.
Yeah, it strikes me that gang members aren’t exactly the type of people who have a fear of breaking the law...
Wait till Obama and his minions apply this
to conservatives!
The Metro police try. Most all are Reserve or NG types. All have served. THE PROBLEM: It is not that cop doing his job. It is the SGT and the LT.
You think I am kidding when I was told- “I paid 10K to get my brother promoted to SGT.” Then after the mother died- “I paid 20K for LT.”
That man does not lie. I will not disclose his name.
Send them to Chicago.
How do I know? Simple. Chicago passed a similar law well over a decade ago.
And like Light Speed, the ACLU had it before SCOTUS and the law was declared .... Unconstitutional. Now all Chicago Cops can 'legally' do is shag singular drug dealers from hanging out at street corners under the old 'Loitering Law'. They tell them to 'move on' and that's it.
But. If it's two or more gang-bangers or drug dealers, even KNOWN ONES, you're now in the Freedom of Assembly area of the Constitution and the cops have to stand mute. (sucks, I know)
This is almost as good as letting thugs have press conferences and file grievances. We have lost have minds in this country.
Ok, so let’s just say they obtain a judgment against em, say $5,000, where will they get the money? Oh wait, they’ll sell more drugs, or lift more goods. It’s a jobs bill!
Things will be better when Obama’s new police force takes over.
They've banned the gangstas from carrying guns, who's that working out?
They can’t put these guys in prison because of lack of space for criminal cases, and they are going to go after them for civil cases?
Armed citizens should work with the police to gather intelligence on these gang members; their dress, their habits, their lingo, their locations, their vehicles, and weapon types. Make no mistake, they are no different from the terrorists we are fighting overseas.
The day is coming when armed citizens are going to do what the justice system refused to do for almost forty years now.
It will be a permanent solution.
why not ban guns tooo while they're at it??? wait...
“Exile as justice was generally upon pain of death if the person ever came back. Otherwise, it’s useless as a form of punishment.”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Now it will be on pain of being farted at...or less.
I figure that an honest police officer is as worthy of the greatest respect as a valiant combat soldier or firefighter. The problem is that law enforcement is one of those professions which, by its very nature, attracts certain very dishonest people. What better position for one who wants to live a lawless life than to be the enforcer of the law? This same line of thinking has led me to conclude that the founders erred when they did not ban attorneys from holding elective office.
We’ve had a similar thing in DC for some time. It doesn’t solve major problems, but when a neighborhood isn’t totally overrun by bad guys, and just a few street corners or a house (or two) per block is a problem (Mom owns house, old toward senile, kids running drugs) then cops can often isolate some of the bad guys with “stay away” orders. That is, if they get into the wrong area, they can be locked up for a while. If the crime or criminal density isn’t too bad, it can make a real difference.
Note that is moves the crime elsewhere instead of “solving” it. But it does dislocate an organization, maybe force a gang into a more dangerous territory for them.
It’s not a panacea, but I’ve seen it make a real difference in a number of places in DC. So the houses go for $1.2M, when they were bought 20 years ago for $250K.
True. Most LEO’s are honest. There is also the old school “nepotism” types in some big cities.
As to the attorneys and public office, I always saw legalman as a person who wanted the first slice of every cake/pie. Whether it is a business deal,a controversy or any problem- legal man will get his slice. Legal man is paid to find/create problems.
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.