pinksugarsub
Posts: 1224
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
quote:
Martial law is the system of rules that takes effect when the military takes control of the normal administration of justice.
Therefore, a police chief ordering road blocks and check points in a neighborhood that has recently had an escalation of violence does not fall under the definition.
Furthermore, unless the action taken is prohibited by city charter and ordinances, it is well within the legal authority of the chief of police to take such action. It falls under the heading of protecting public safety.
Only if the action can clearly be shown as racially motivated is it unconstitutional. This does not mean that if the neighborhood is predominantly non-white, it is racially motivated.
While the random checks of identification is not illegal, any search of vehicles based on those stops alone would be, there must be probable cause.
What you are discribing is similiar to actions taken in NYC, LA, and other large cities after outbreaks of gang related violence. Increase patrols, establish check points for random stops, and pray that your officers dont become targets.
The American public is under the misguided notion that any activity that increases a police presence in a particular section of a city constitutes police oppression. Good examples of police and law enforcement oppression can be found just by looking over the video records of the Berkley Protests, Kent State, and any of the civil rights marches in the south.
There is no easy way to deal with gang and drug related violence. An officer involved in a shooting with gang bangers will more than likely find himself under invistigation from Internal Affairs and sued by the kids parents.
And please note, these gang members just spray bullets from a moving car, meaning that everyone is a target.
You still want to complain?
jif, i agree with Your definition of -- lemme see if i can spell it this time -- martial law.
However, when the 'normal administration of justice' is disrupted by agents of the government, it doesn't seem material to me whether the government authorities involved are military or police.
i cannot accept Your premise that the only violation of the Bill of Rights the government can be charged with is one that is somehow racially motivated. Infringing on the rights of citizens to be free of unreasonable search and seizure, for example, has no 'racial' requirement.
Note that the police action as described in articles i have read included refusing P/pl entrance to certain areas of DC if the police, after questioning the driver, were unsatifisfied with the reason given.
Among other things, i see nothing in the Constitution that allows an agent of the government to restrict the movements of any citizen (other than prisoners). This type of government action seems to be a clear violation of the guarantee that W/we will not be deprived of O/our liberty without due process of law.
i also want to know what standards police intend to use in determing whether a driver's stated purpose is or is not acceptable. i want to know if every police officer will apply the standards -- if they exist -- in the same way every time. i don't see how that's remotely possible, and thus, i believe the DC police action violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments.
pinksugarsub
< Message edited by pinksugarsub -- 6/13/2008 7:00:11 PM >
_____________________________
|
RE: Marital Law 'Unofficially' Declared in DC - 
Profile
. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread