would you support police/natl guard on corners of overly violent neighborhoods?

[blu]

No. A better idea would be make drugs legal. Then the gangs wouldn't be killing each other in the streets.

this libertarian garbage is nonsense. maybe we should decriminalize theft and murder.

maybe you should learn about what true freedom and personal responsiblity is, you know what this country is founded upon. the government has no right to regulate what I do unless it affects others. taking drugs affects no one except myself, while theft and murder both violate the privacy and rights of whomever I steal from or murder. If you can learn the difference then you can stop using red herrings and other fallacies in your posts.

 

[Big Fitz]

As the title says, would you support "locking down" of violent neighborhoods? For example lets say that within a four block radius 5 murders occur in a month (not much of a stretch near here in bad new orleans neighborhoods) and then after the threshold is passed, police and natl guard are stationed on every corner in the affected radius 24/7 for some amount of time. Would you be okay with this? I think it would definitely deter crime in the area and "starve" out some criminal as their money production abilities whether drugs, stealing&selling goods, prositution etc would basically be stifled.

Police, yes.

National Guard, no. I don't support militarizing American cities.

dammit... Geaux and I agree again. I hate it when the world has to end every time this happens.

LOL

 

[blu]

Military forces are NOT for police duties. They are for killing people and breaking shit. I would rather see our military on our own border shooting the coyotes, drug traffickers and illegal invaders... I mean immigrants up for target practice than on the streets of what is left of Detroit or Kansas City.

And we have a few great places to pull them back from. Germany, South Korea, Japan, England. You know... places they don't want us and we don't need to be.

each state's national guard is meant to help the state when local forces cannot do it alone. when many murders and other violent crimes occur within a short area in a short amount of time then tis obviously not being contained by the police

A natural disaster or riot is different from day to day police enforcement. This is why you divide civilian law enforcement from the military. Soldiers are meant to secure space, provide structure when anarchy is running amok, provide a structured workforce for natural disaster recovery and provide the perimeter for civilian government to re-establish control.

So I see what you're thinking about having the national guard go down to bad neighborhoods and seize control of the situation, and they will, for a short period. The problem is that they would have to REMAIN there to keep control. They're a temporary anodyne, for there will have to be the declaration of martial law, curfew and other very disruptive legal declarations made for these areas. The criminals, not being stupid will just do one of a few things.

- Go to ground till the military leaves, which it would soon, and then restart operations as usual.
- Leave the area and the problem goes with it, solving nothing.
- Corrupt the military into assisting them in criminal activity making the worst of all worlds. Think Mexico.

Yes, the state national guards do what you're saying, but they are STILL a military force, unqualified for day to day law enforcement. You do not send a squad or unit of troops to deal with a domestic dispute or deal with traffic, or break up a bar fight. They go in with lethal weapons for quick and permanent solutions to civil unrest, making them ideal for dealing with riots where you have curfews out and a shoot on sight order for looting.

Only dictators mix the two for more than a few days or weeks at a time during times of emergency.

This is why you can't use this solution.

I don't 100% agree, but great post. I mostly don't agree with criminals being able to just pack up leave. other communities either would already have criminals who woulnd't just let new people on their turf or they would be peaceful places that would quickly work through police or own force to eradicate the new crime. I know bringing in national guard can lead to a bad situation resembling a police state, but I think if done on a smal enough scale (say a few blocks in either direction) it could really put a strangle on those criminals ability to commit crime and eventually starve them out.

 

[blu]

No. A better idea would be make drugs legal. Then the gangs wouldn't be killing each other in the streets.

all drugs?....or just certain ones...

all. where in the constitution can the govenrment regulate what I put into my body?

 

[Big Fitz]

I'd agree to this on certain conditions.

- Drug user and dealer registry, otherwise you're using/selling them illegally.
- All drug users are banned from all local, state and federal government aid.
- Right to discriminate against drug users for housing, trade, driving privileges and work.
- Ban smoking. You cannot smoke drugs, including tobacco, but only smokeless varieties. This prevents others from being accidentally dosed.
- Illegal/unlicensed drug traffickers, sellers get mandatory death penalty. Same for those who sell to minors.
- No drugs (including tobacco) in prison. Why reward them? Prison is supposed to be punishment not a government run crackhouse for criminals.

I want people scared to screw up and do this activity illegally. I don't want any option for activist judges to go off on a 'boys will be boys' and let them off with a slap on the wrist. I don't want repeat offenders for trafficking drugs when the wonders of "cheap pharmaceutical recreation" have blessed our nation. You want to do pot? Fine, buy Marinol, and pop a pill or find another smokeless delivery system. Crazy! no more need for shitty stinky patchouli and I don't have to get accidentally dosed while living in the same building as you. And lastly, if I want a drug free workplace, I can say "no druggies" and not be sued for discrimination by some ACLU tard in a suit thinking there should be an exemption from his client who's all but an invalid because his brain's fried on whatever he's been shooting up or popping.

Of course, best still, leave this shit up to the state and end the federal war on drugs. Let the individual states decide if they want pot, heroin, LSD and other stupid choices running about on their streets. I can already see the hell clubs will turn into.

But on a related note, where are the 'food safety nazis' on this topic where anything you consume that isn't good for you should be banned?

 

[geauxtohell]

As the title says, would you support "locking down" of violent neighborhoods? For example lets say that within a four block radius 5 murders occur in a month (not much of a stretch near here in bad new orleans neighborhoods) and then after the threshold is passed, police and natl guard are stationed on every corner in the affected radius 24/7 for some amount of time. Would you be okay with this? I think it would definitely deter crime in the area and "starve" out some criminal as their money production abilities whether drugs, stealing&selling goods, prositution etc would basically be stifled.

Police, yes.

National Guard, no. I don't support militarizing American cities.

dammit... Geaux and I agree again. I hate it when the world has to end every time this happens.

LOL

It drove me nuts to see the NG patrolling the New Orleans streets. I had just gotten off of active duty too, so It's not like I am some sort of military hater.

It was the principle of the thing.

I don't know what in the fuck would have happened if a guardsman shot a civilian. I am surprised that can of worms was avoided.

 

[Big Fitz]

Yea, I understand why you'd like to see that, cause at times, I wish it could be done. But when I follow through the consequences logically, it fails, or worse, becomes a bigger problem.

Better served to end the war on drugs at the federal level, let states decide, arm the citizenry to the gills and let them defend themselves when police aren't around. I know the police will freak, but let's face it, that's when you up their gear. It's a fact that criminal activity goes down in communities with concealed carry permits because criminals never quite know who is packing and whether or not they're trained enough and inclined enough to skip the arrest, jailing, arraignment, trial, sentencing, incarceration aspect of the judicial process and skip right to executioner. Read up on the work of Dr. John Lott. I believe his book is titled "More guns, Less Crime".

 

[blu]

- Drug user and dealer registry, otherwise you're using/selling them illegally.

yes, selling/growing would have to be strictly regulated like it is for alcohol & tobacco.

- All drug users are banned from all local, state and federal government aid.

why? alcohol users aren't

- Right to discriminate against drug users for housing, trade, driving privileges and work.

treat the drugs like alcohol. alcohol users cannot be discriminated against for house & trade, but driving privs can be revoked if dwi and fired if you show up drunk for work. should be the same for under influence of drugs.

- Ban smoking. You cannot smoke drugs, including tobacco, but only smokeless varieties. This prevents others from being accidentally dosed.

why couldn't people smoke in their house if there are no kids present?

- Illegal/unlicensed drug traffickers, sellers get mandatory death penalty. Same for those who sell to minors.

I don't believe in a government killing its citizens, but life in prison sounds good.

- No drugs (including tobacco) in prison. Why reward them? Prison is supposed to be punishment not a government run crackhouse for criminals.

yes

And lastly, if I want a drug free workplace, I can say "no druggies" and not be sued for discrimination by some ACLU tard in a suit thinking there should be an exemption from his client who's all but an invalid because his brain's fried on whatever he's been shooting up or popping.

no drugs at work yes and you cannot come to work under the influence. you shouldn't be discriminated against for using it though on private time.

But on a related note, where are the 'food safety nazis' on this topic where anything you consume that isn't good for you should be banned?

drugs aren't food and youd on't consume them as often as food

EDIT: I agree about your point with smoke in aparments since its travels. that should be banned too

 

[Big Fitz]

I don't believe in a government killing its citizens, but life in prison sounds good.

Why let them live? They're never coming out. It's cheaper and more humane to put a bullet between the eyes and be done with it. No escapes, no recidivism, wasn't being released anyway.

 

[blu]

I don't believe in a government killing its citizens, but life in prison sounds good.

Why let them live? They're never coming out. It's cheaper and more humane to put a bullet between the eyes and be done with it. No escapes, no recidivism, wasn't being released anyway.

I talked about it before here, but basically unless there is 100% conclusive proof, such as the act being caught on video and/or audio or done in public were there are too many eyewitnesses for them to be all be in a conspiracy I don't believe in the death penalty. too many cases have been overturned due to DNA and other new technology and the government including judges, police, and prosecutors are far too corrupt to be in charge of who gets to die or not.

 

[nraforlife]

As the title says, would you support "locking down" of violent neighborhoods? For example lets say that within a four block radius 5 murders occur in a month (not much of a stretch near here in bad new orleans neighborhoods) and then after the threshold is passed, police and natl guard are stationed on every corner in the affected radius 24/7 for some amount of time. Would you be okay with this? I think it would definitely deter crime in the area and "starve" out some criminal as their money production abilities whether drugs, stealing&selling goods, prositution etc would basically be stifled.

Absolutely NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BTW a clear definition of just how you define 'violent' neighborhood would be nice.

 

[blu]

As the title says, would you support "locking down" of violent neighborhoods? For example lets say that within a four block radius 5 murders occur in a month (not much of a stretch near here in bad new orleans neighborhoods) and then after the threshold is passed, police and natl guard are stationed on every corner in the affected radius 24/7 for some amount of time. Would you be okay with this? I think it would definitely deter crime in the area and "starve" out some criminal as their money production abilities whether drugs, stealing&selling goods, prositution etc would basically be stifled.

Absolutely NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BTW a clear definition of just how you define 'violent' neighborhood would be nice.

i gave an example in the OP...

 

[JakeStarkey]

As the title says, would you support "locking down" of violent neighborhoods? For example lets say that within a four block radius 5 murders occur in a month (not much of a stretch near here in bad new orleans neighborhoods) and then after the threshold is passed, police and natl guard are stationed on every corner in the affected radius 24/7 for some amount of time. Would you be okay with this? I think it would definitely deter crime in the area and "starve" out some criminal as their money production abilities whether drugs, stealing&selling goods, prositution etc would basically be stifled.

Sure.

 

[Dr Gregg]

that sounds like a recipe for violence and riots

 

[boedicca]

There is a method known as Community Policing which can be very effective. Cops are assigned to neighborhoods and walk a beat. They get to know the people - and develop relationships with honest ones who would like to see crime reduced. The visible presence sends a message to criminals that they have a higher likelihood of being caught - and one to the law-abiding folks that the police are there to provide a layer of protection. That layer is dependent, however, upon community involvement.

Unless the honest people take a stand to transform their neighborhood, the police or national guard are only window dressing. Once they leave, it will revert back to whatever the particular pathologies were driven by the criminal element.

 

[antagon]

No. A better idea would be make drugs legal. Then the gangs wouldn't be killing each other in the streets.

this libertarian garbage is nonsense. maybe we should decriminalize theft and murder.

maybe you should learn about what true freedom and personal responsiblity is, you know what this country is founded upon. the government has no right to regulate what I do unless it affects others. taking drugs affects no one except myself, while theft and murder both violate the privacy and rights of whomever I steal from or murder. If you can learn the difference then you can stop using red herrings and other fallacies in your posts.

sure. a little hyperbole.

but your conjecture that drugs you do wont affect others is not real either. that decriminalization will improve crime in cities isnt sensible either.

red herrings still have a point to be digested. mine is that if you take the criminal component from an action, it doesnt add to it's merits in reality, while it will add to people's participation in the action at hand.

stop with your tired founder's bullshit already; like they envisioned a country of smackheads burning spoons on the street.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is a method known as Community Policing which can be very effective. Cops are assigned to neighborhoods and walk a beat. They get to know the people - and develop relationships with honest ones who would like to see crime reduced. The visible presence sends a message to criminals that they have a higher likelihood of being caught - and one to the law-abiding folks that the police are there to provide a layer of protection. That layer is dependent, however, upon community involvement.

Unless the honest people take a stand to transform their neighborhood, the police or national guard are only window dressing. Once they leave, it will revert back to whatever the particular pathologies were driven by the criminal element.

The National Guard, riot units, etc. are useful in putting down mob violence in extreme crisis situations. But you're right. Unless they become a permanent fixture, the bad guys just lay low until things calm down and the extra protection leaves. Then it is business as usual.

And you are right that cops walking a beat are effective in cohesive neighborhoods where they will get support and the people will watch their backs and assist as appropriate. Many neighborhoods now, however, are not the solid, vital old neighborhoods that the beat cops once walked. You put a single cop on foot walking the projects these days, and i doubt he would last a week or maybe not even a day.

A neighborhood setting up its own guard posts as I previously described was effective in running out th drug lords in one setting here, but might not be as effective in the 'war zone' in Albuquerque.

But as long as the police are more afraid of lawsuits and retribution for doing their jobs than they are afraid the crooks if we should allow the police to do their jobs, I don't see anything improving any time soon.

 

[blu]

but your conjecture that drugs you do wont affect others is not real either. that decriminalization will improve crime in cities isnt sensible either.

If I were to do drugs today how would I affect anyone else? If a drug user does affect someone else negatively then the police or whoever get involved just as if they were not high.

stop with your tired founder's bullshit already; like they envisioned a country of smackheads burning spoons on the street.

except in certain areas, such as the french quarter or the vegas strip, can you drink in public? why woudl you think drugs would be allowed in public instead of on private property approved by the owner? The founders would be distraught at hte current war on drugs. supposedly free adults scared to smoke something in their house or do something on private property for fear of police invading their property, stealing their possessions and then stripping them of all liberty (jail).

 

[nraforlife]

........lets say that within a four block radius 5 murders occur in a month ................................

Enforce the Laws- identify/arrest/try/convict/execute the perps. No need to have a military occupation.

 

[antagon]

blu, thats how it works right now. you can essentially do drugs in your home or in remote seclusion. you can deal drugs on a humble scale... all of that. im talking about smelly drug-use in neighborhoods with lots of police presence.

the law is the mandate for the government to react where these uses become problematic or reach a commercial scale which creates negative social effect which your model does not acknowledge. if you were to simply make most drugs legal, the harms they present and which are advocated by their uncontrolled status will indeed affect everyone, nationwide. if you were to do that with all drugs, then we've got a real problem.

no more founders got my back arguments. those have got to be the lamest shits being flung round here as of late. leave the good men rest; they've got enough rolling round in their graves to do over abolition.