Somebody in DC is putting a little too much faith in government. Certainly, not anything surprising about that. The problem is in the method. Considering DC, still no surprise.
A bunch of bloggers have written about this and I probably have little to add, but I see this as one way to help explain the excesses of government power. I have links to the other bloggers below.
1. The all knowing benevolent overseers have decided that what one does in the privacy of one's veins, or lungs, or stomach is not up to us and should be regulated - For our own good.
2. The all knowing benevolent overseers have decided that the second amendment to the Constitution, in the part known as the Bill of Rights, is not to be honored in many places, especially those where one might wish to have some sort of protection against criminals. Again, this is done - For our own good.
3. The all knowing benevolent overseers have decided that the resulting crime, even they will refer to it as drug crime, is so bad that we need to institute a form of police state - temporarily, at least until we get used to the idea and accept it as just the way things are in the post 9/11 world. One more time, this is done - For our own good.
Government is not necessarily bad, but the government that creates a crime that does not harm others, unless engaging in another crime at the same time, is out of hand. This crime leads to significant violence, so much so, that the government feels a need to create a temporary police state. This same government has the possibility of assistance from the citizenry entirely eliminated, because the government has completely disarmed the citizens. Because, as TOTWTYTR is fond of saying "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!"
The only recourse the people have is not self reliance, but calling 911 and hoping that someone shows up in time, hoping that when someone shows up, they will do something to stop the crime, and hoping that there will not be retaliation from the cronies of the criminal(s) who was the reason for the 911 call.
Better to put up roadblocks, stop all vehicles (because real criminals don't walk), then ask why the occupants of the vehicle are entering the area, and if the answer is considered unsatisfactory, deny entrance to the vehicle. If the vehicle does not leave immediately the occupants may be arrested.
Unsatisfactory could include a whole bunch of things, such as "I want to score some crack, but I forgot my wallet and thought I would just cap some MoFo and take his drugs." This is not the kind of person you want to let in. BUT are we doing anything to discourage violent crime? What is this person likely to do? "I can't get into the usual places to get drugs, I don't have money, but I do have an illegal gun (even though no law would allow a violent criminal like me to obtain a gun), so I might as well use it in this nicer neighborhood. I just love the way unintended consequences make my life more interesting."
Since the traffic stop would allow the police to check for warrants and other reasons to detain people, it will probably discourage those wanted by the police from using this means of entrance.
"Just let me off at the corner, here. I'll meet you on the other side of the checkpoint."
"The police can't be that stupid. They will stop you and you're busted."
"The police aren't that stupid. Those are the rules the politicians came up with to sell this to people who are that stupid. The police have to follow the rules."
I wrote discourage for a reason. It will not stop much of anything. It will transfer illegal activity to other areas, as crackdowns are known to do.
There was another post about the way Beijing is being made not to resemble London, with cameras everywhere, but to surpass London. Washington, DC is planning the same kind of thing.
China is doing this to bring about the end of dissent - You know the stuff protected by the first amendment to the US Constitution. Can the politicians in America be too far behind? We don't really need those Bill of Rights things, after all we have a benevolent government. The people who wrote the Bill of Rights were a bunch of treasonous radicals.
Trust us. We're from the government and we're here to help.
The title of the post is a reference to the movie about isolating Manhattan as a penal colony - Escape From New York. It was the first thought I had. Well, I have covered the things that I felt needed adding.
Here are the links to other blogs commenting on this:
LawDog - Papieren, bitte!
No Looking Backwards - This Just In!
Too Old To Work, Too Young To Retire - In the Pantheon of Stupid Ideas.
Bayou Renaissance Man - China's all-seeing eye - coming to America?
The Volokh Conspiracy - Is the DC Checkpoint Plan Unconstitutional?
And a news story about the DC camera plan:
Examiner.com - Privacy advocates, lawmakers criticize citywide camera plan.
.
A bunch of bloggers have written about this and I probably have little to add, but I see this as one way to help explain the excesses of government power. I have links to the other bloggers below.
1. The all knowing benevolent overseers have decided that what one does in the privacy of one's veins, or lungs, or stomach is not up to us and should be regulated - For our own good.
2. The all knowing benevolent overseers have decided that the second amendment to the Constitution, in the part known as the Bill of Rights, is not to be honored in many places, especially those where one might wish to have some sort of protection against criminals. Again, this is done - For our own good.
3. The all knowing benevolent overseers have decided that the resulting crime, even they will refer to it as drug crime, is so bad that we need to institute a form of police state - temporarily, at least until we get used to the idea and accept it as just the way things are in the post 9/11 world. One more time, this is done - For our own good.
Government is not necessarily bad, but the government that creates a crime that does not harm others, unless engaging in another crime at the same time, is out of hand. This crime leads to significant violence, so much so, that the government feels a need to create a temporary police state. This same government has the possibility of assistance from the citizenry entirely eliminated, because the government has completely disarmed the citizens. Because, as TOTWTYTR is fond of saying "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!"
The only recourse the people have is not self reliance, but calling 911 and hoping that someone shows up in time, hoping that when someone shows up, they will do something to stop the crime, and hoping that there will not be retaliation from the cronies of the criminal(s) who was the reason for the 911 call.
Better to put up roadblocks, stop all vehicles (because real criminals don't walk), then ask why the occupants of the vehicle are entering the area, and if the answer is considered unsatisfactory, deny entrance to the vehicle. If the vehicle does not leave immediately the occupants may be arrested.
Unsatisfactory could include a whole bunch of things, such as "I want to score some crack, but I forgot my wallet and thought I would just cap some MoFo and take his drugs." This is not the kind of person you want to let in. BUT are we doing anything to discourage violent crime? What is this person likely to do? "I can't get into the usual places to get drugs, I don't have money, but I do have an illegal gun (even though no law would allow a violent criminal like me to obtain a gun), so I might as well use it in this nicer neighborhood. I just love the way unintended consequences make my life more interesting."
Since the traffic stop would allow the police to check for warrants and other reasons to detain people, it will probably discourage those wanted by the police from using this means of entrance.
"Just let me off at the corner, here. I'll meet you on the other side of the checkpoint."
"The police can't be that stupid. They will stop you and you're busted."
"The police aren't that stupid. Those are the rules the politicians came up with to sell this to people who are that stupid. The police have to follow the rules."
I wrote discourage for a reason. It will not stop much of anything. It will transfer illegal activity to other areas, as crackdowns are known to do.
There was another post about the way Beijing is being made not to resemble London, with cameras everywhere, but to surpass London. Washington, DC is planning the same kind of thing.
China is doing this to bring about the end of dissent - You know the stuff protected by the first amendment to the US Constitution. Can the politicians in America be too far behind? We don't really need those Bill of Rights things, after all we have a benevolent government. The people who wrote the Bill of Rights were a bunch of treasonous radicals.
Trust us. We're from the government and we're here to help.
The title of the post is a reference to the movie about isolating Manhattan as a penal colony - Escape From New York. It was the first thought I had. Well, I have covered the things that I felt needed adding.
Here are the links to other blogs commenting on this:
LawDog - Papieren, bitte!
No Looking Backwards - This Just In!
Too Old To Work, Too Young To Retire - In the Pantheon of Stupid Ideas.
Bayou Renaissance Man - China's all-seeing eye - coming to America?
The Volokh Conspiracy - Is the DC Checkpoint Plan Unconstitutional?
And a news story about the DC camera plan:
Examiner.com - Privacy advocates, lawmakers criticize citywide camera plan.
.
2 comments:
The cameras in London have done nothing to reduce or solve crime. http://tinyurl.com/286pab
In fact, using cameras to reduce the number of officers needed has increased it.
Of course Britain would never think of allowing it's subjects to arm themselves for self defense.
They might revolt. :-)
Post a Comment