D.C. police to block off neighborhoods to residents only or those with permission

[BrunoPuntzJones]

D.C. police will seal off entire neighborhoods, set up checkpoints and kick out strangers under a new program that D.C. officials hope will help them rescue the city from its out-of-control violence.

Under an executive order expected to be announced today, police Chief Cathy L. Lanier will have the authority to designate ?Neighborhood Safety Zones.?At least six officers will man cordons around those zones and demand identification from people coming in and out of them. Anyone who doesn?t live there, work there or have ?legitimate reason? to be there will be sent away or face arrest, documents obtained by The Examiner show.

Lanier has been struggling to reverse D.C.?s spiraling crime rate but has been forced by public outcry to scale back several initiatives including her ?All Hands on Deck? weekends and plans for warrantless, door-to-door searches for drugs and guns.

Under today?s proposal, the no-go zones will last up to 10 days, according to internal police documents. Front-line officers are already being signed up for training on running the blue curtains.

Peter Nickles, the city?s interim attorney general, said the quarantine would have ?a narrow focus.?

?This is a very targeted program that has been used in other cities,? Nickles told The Examiner. ?I?m not worried about the constitutionality of it.?

Others are. Kristopher Baumann, chairman of the D.C. police union and a former lawyer, called the checkpoint proposal ?breathtaking.?

Shelley Broderick, president of the D.C.-area American Civil Liberties Union and the dean of the University of the District of Columbia?s law school, said the plan was ?cockamamie.?

?I think they tried this in Russia and it failed,? she said. ?It?s just our experience in this city that we always end up targeting poor people and people of color, and we treat the kids coming home from choir practice the same as we treat those kids who are selling drugs.?

The proposal has the provisional support of D.C. Councilman Harry ?Tommy? Thomas, D-Ward 5, whose ward has become a war zone.

?They?re really going to crack down on what we believe to be a systemic problem with open-air drug markets,? Thomas told The Examiner.

Thomas said, though, that he worried about D.C. ?moving towards a police state.?

Last time I checked, it wasn't the responsibility of police to protect you. But the .gov knows what is best, better show them your papers or be arrested.

Plus it seems like it'd be pretty easy to just commit crimes a few blocks over from the roped off areas.

Edited to add link

 

[jackschmittusa]

I was about to post this too. Easily the most outrageous thing I've heard today.

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

D.C. police will seal off entire neighborhoods, set up checkpoints and kick out strangers under a new program that D.C. officials hope will help them rescue the city from its out-of-control violence.

Under an executive order expected to be announced today, police Chief Cathy L. Lanier will have the authority to designate ?Neighborhood Safety Zones.?At least six officers will man cordons around those zones and demand identification from people coming in and out of them. Anyone who doesn?t live there, work there or have ?legitimate reason? to be there will be sent away or face arrest, documents obtained by The Examiner show.

Lanier has been struggling to reverse D.C.?s spiraling crime rate but has been forced by public outcry to scale back several initiatives including her ?All Hands on Deck? weekends and plans for warrantless, door-to-door searches for drugs and guns.

Under today?s proposal, the no-go zones will last up to 10 days, according to internal police documents. Front-line officers are already being signed up for training on running the blue curtains.

Peter Nickles, the city?s interim attorney general, said the quarantine would have ?a narrow focus.?

?This is a very targeted program that has been used in other cities,? Nickles told The Examiner. ?I?m not worried about the constitutionality of it.?

Others are. Kristopher Baumann, chairman of the D.C. police union and a former lawyer, called the checkpoint proposal ?breathtaking.?

Shelley Broderick, president of the D.C.-area American Civil Liberties Union and the dean of the University of the District of Columbia?s law school, said the plan was ?cockamamie.?

?I think they tried this in Russia and it failed,? she said. ?It?s just our experience in this city that we always end up targeting poor people and people of color, and we treat the kids coming home from choir practice the same as we treat those kids who are selling drugs.?

The proposal has the provisional support of D.C. Councilman Harry ?Tommy? Thomas, D-Ward 5, whose ward has become a war zone.

?They?re really going to crack down on what we believe to be a systemic problem with open-air drug markets,? Thomas told The Examiner.

Thomas said, though, that he worried about D.C. ?moving towards a police state.?

Last time I checked, it wasn't the responsibility of police to protect you. But the .gov knows what is best, better show them your papers or be arrested.

Plus it seems like it'd be pretty easy to just commit crimes a few blocks over from the roped off areas.

Edited to add link

Have you been to DC lately? I'm not sure there's anything else they can do...

I'm kidding of course. Well, sort of. Its a dangerous sh@thole.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Last time I checked, it wasn't the responsibility of police to protect you. But the .gov knows what is best, better show them your papers or be arrested.

Plus it seems like it'd be pretty easy to just commit crimes a few blocks over from the roped off areas.

Edited to add link

I agree that this development is entirely unacceptable, but I'm pretty darn sure that protecting people is one of the primary responsibilities for police...

"To Protect and Serve..."

that said, it looks like they're taking that too far in D.C.

 

[PrinceofWands]

In-fucking-sane.

*boggle*

I wonder if it's possible to really quantify all of the good that would come from a large scale explosion that wiped out the entire population of Washington DC.

 

[Zebo]

Since politicians took the right of self defense away from DC people it's also their duty to protect them now.

"I?m not worried about the constitutionality of it.?

They never much are it seems.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
...

Have you been to DC lately? I'm not sure there's anything else they can do...

I'm kidding of course. Well, sort of. Its a dangerous sh@thole.

What? No it's not...in fact, it's much better than it has been for decades. The majority of DC outside of the SE area is perfectly fine, certainly better than it used to be. The crime problems, whatever their rate, are isolated in a few bad areas. This program might make sense from that perspective, but it seems pretty unconstitutional to me.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Since politicians took the right of self defense away from DC people it's also their duty to protect them now.

"I?m not worried about the constitutionality of it.?

They never much are it seems.

Yep, pretty much. The gun control nuts seem to think that it's the responsibility of the government/Police to protect you, so here ya go, they're getting what they asked for.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
...

Have you been to DC lately? I'm not sure there's anything else they can do...

I'm kidding of course. Well, sort of. Its a dangerous sh@thole.

What? No it's not...in fact, it's much better than it has been for decades. The majority of DC outside of the SE area is perfectly fine, certainly better than it used to be. The crime problems, whatever their rate, are isolated in a few bad areas. This program might make sense from that perspective, but it seems pretty unconstitutional to me.

I agree, it used to be much worse, or so it seems. Either way, this is NOT the way that is should be handled.

 

[RichardE]

Anyone watch District 13 lately?

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
...

Have you been to DC lately? I'm not sure there's anything else they can do...

I'm kidding of course. Well, sort of. Its a dangerous sh@thole.

What? No it's not...in fact, it's much better than it has been for decades. The majority of DC outside of the SE area is perfectly fine, certainly better than it used to be. The crime problems, whatever their rate, are isolated in a few bad areas. This program might make sense from that perspective, but it seems pretty unconstitutional to me.

If that's true, then I'm glad to be proven wrong. I haven't been there for a few years, but last time it was either pretty bad or I wandered into one of the "few bad areas" you mentioned.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Since politicians took the right of self defense away from DC people it's also their duty to protect them now.

"I?m not worried about the constitutionality of it.?

They never much are it seems.

Even if you have a point about self-defense, the police still have an obvious responsibility. Beyond the LEGAL ability to defend oneself is the ACTUAL ability to do so. Giving the police a free-ride and handing out guns with every fillup at the local gas station doesn't help the 80 year old woman who lives alone and doesn't see too well, or the 20 year old girl who doesn't own a gun. Who's going to protect them?

 

[NoStateofMind]

This is the big government you all want, so suck it up and bend over.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
...

Have you been to DC lately? I'm not sure there's anything else they can do...

I'm kidding of course. Well, sort of. Its a dangerous sh@thole.

What? No it's not...in fact, it's much better than it has been for decades. The majority of DC outside of the SE area is perfectly fine, certainly better than it used to be. The crime problems, whatever their rate, are isolated in a few bad areas. This program might make sense from that perspective, but it seems pretty unconstitutional to me.

If that's true, then I'm glad to be proven wrong. I haven't been there for a few years, but last time it was either pretty bad or I wandered into one of the "few bad areas" you mentioned.

Certainly many of the formerly dangerous as hell areas are no longer like that, and things in general seem to be moving in the right direction.

Honestly, THAT'S what lowers crime rate. Not police crackdowns or well armed citizens or whatever, a "nice" city tends to have less crime, so trying to improve areas of the city in all respects is going to be more effective than hundreds of police swarming around.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Zebo
Since politicians took the right of self defense away from DC people it's also their duty to protect them now.

"I?m not worried about the constitutionality of it.?

They never much are it seems.

Even if you have a point about self-defense, the police still have an obvious responsibility. Beyond the LEGAL ability to defend oneself is the ACTUAL ability to do so. Giving the police a free-ride and handing out guns with every fillup at the local gas station doesn't help the 80 year old woman who lives alone and doesn't see too well, or the 20 year old girl who doesn't own a gun. Who's going to protect them?

My 21 year old gf travels with two guns. One holstered and one in the glove box. She has permits for both and has used them 4 times in total all in self defense. The only valid point is the 80 year old lady who can be put in a protected senior community if they so chose. *Chose* is the keyword.

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: RichardE
My 21 year old gf travels with two guns. One holstered and one in the glove box. She has permits for both and has used them 4 times in total all in self defense.

What happened 4 times that she had to use it?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Originally posted by: RichardE
My 21 year old gf travels with two guns. One holstered and one in the glove box. She has permits for both and has used them 4 times in total all in self defense.

What happened 4 times that she had to use it?

2 sexual assaults in the university parking lot, 1 break in to her apartment, and 1 attempted carjacking. She shot the guy(s) each time, never fatally. (Though the guy who broke into her apartment took 5 rounds to the chest). Sex assaults were easily self defense. Guy in the apartment came at her with a hatchet and the carjacker aimed a gun at her. I never owned a gun till I lived with her but own 4 now that I keep at her place until my permit gets approved.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Originally posted by: RichardE
My 21 year old gf travels with two guns. One holstered and one in the glove box. She has permits for both and has used them 4 times in total all in self defense.

What happened 4 times that she had to use it?

2 sexual assaults in the university parking lot, 1 break in to her apartment, and 1 attempted carjacking. She shot the guy(s) each time, never fatally. (Though the guy who broke into her apartment took 5 rounds to the chest). Sex assaults were easily self defense. Guy in the apartment came at her with a hatchet and the carjacker aimed a gun at her. I never owned a gun till I lived with her but own 4 now that I keep at her place until my permit gets approved.

WOW! are you getting married dont fuck with her, ever.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Originally posted by: RichardE
My 21 year old gf travels with two guns. One holstered and one in the glove box. She has permits for both and has used them 4 times in total all in self defense.

What happened 4 times that she had to use it?

2 sexual assaults in the university parking lot, 1 break in to her apartment, and 1 attempted carjacking. She shot the guy(s) each time, never fatally. (Though the guy who broke into her apartment took 5 rounds to the chest). Sex assaults were easily self defense. Guy in the apartment came at her with a hatchet and the carjacker aimed a gun at her. I never owned a gun till I lived with her but own 4 now that I keep at her place until my permit gets approved.

WOW! are you getting married dont fuck with her, ever.

yeah :laugh: I've joked about that before. Its funny though, she has basic self defence training (getting out of holds ect) and is maybe a 110 pounds soaking wet. She doesn't look too dangerous...

I've trained my wandering eye not to wander though :laugh: :beer:

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Zebo
Since politicians took the right of self defense away from DC people it's also their duty to protect them now.

"I?m not worried about the constitutionality of it.?

They never much are it seems.

Even if you have a point about self-defense, the police still have an obvious responsibility. Beyond the LEGAL ability to defend oneself is the ACTUAL ability to do so. Giving the police a free-ride and handing out guns with every fillup at the local gas station doesn't help the 80 year old woman who lives alone and doesn't see too well, or the 20 year old girl who doesn't own a gun. Who's going to protect them?

As Hillary would say "It takes a village"

Good Samaritans. Happens all the time.

 

[nageov3t]

isn't this like the same thing as those "no thru traffic" signs? I see them pretty frequently.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Zebo
Since politicians took the right of self defense away from DC people it's also their duty to protect them now.

"I?m not worried about the constitutionality of it.?

They never much are it seems.

Even if you have a point about self-defense, the police still have an obvious responsibility. Beyond the LEGAL ability to defend oneself is the ACTUAL ability to do so. Giving the police a free-ride and handing out guns with every fillup at the local gas station doesn't help the 80 year old woman who lives alone and doesn't see too well, or the 20 year old girl who doesn't own a gun. Who's going to protect them?

Absolutely no one. Protection is your own responsibility. No one else is there when you are 24/7. If you don't choose to protect yourself you may be victimized or killed. That's just the way it is.

Not only have the courts ruled that police aren't required to protect you, there is simply no logical way they can. The best they can do is show up afterward and collect evidence, and inform the next of kin.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
...

Have you been to DC lately? I'm not sure there's anything else they can do...

I'm kidding of course. Well, sort of. Its a dangerous sh@thole.

What? No it's not...in fact, it's much better than it has been for decades. The majority of DC outside of the SE area is perfectly fine, certainly better than it used to be. The crime problems, whatever their rate, are isolated in a few bad areas. This program might make sense from that perspective, but it seems pretty unconstitutional to me.

Rainsford is correct.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Zebo
Since politicians took the right of self defense away from DC people it's also their duty to protect them now.

"I?m not worried about the constitutionality of it.?

They never much are it seems.

Yep, pretty much. The gun control nuts seem to think that it's the responsibility of the government/Police to protect you, so here ya go, they're getting what they asked for.

So what is the responsibility of the police then ? To eat donuts and meet their ticket quota?

PS Where is the Anadtech "If you are not doing anything wrong, don't worry about it." crowd??

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Zebo
Since politicians took the right of self defense away from DC people it's also their duty to protect them now.

"I?m not worried about the constitutionality of it.?

They never much are it seems.

Even if you have a point about self-defense, the police still have an obvious responsibility. Beyond the LEGAL ability to defend oneself is the ACTUAL ability to do so. Giving the police a free-ride and handing out guns with every fillup at the local gas station doesn't help the 80 year old woman who lives alone and doesn't see too well, or the 20 year old girl who doesn't own a gun. Who's going to protect them?

Absolutely no one. Protection is your own responsibility. No one else is there when you are 24/7. If you don't choose to protect yourself you may be victimized or killed. That's just the way it is.

Not only have the courts ruled that police aren't required to protect you, there is simply no logical way they can. The best they can do is show up afterward and collect evidence, and inform the next of kin.

That's silly. I agree that protection is ultimately your own responsibility, but there is a reason we live in a society instead of the jungle...your survival should NOT rely on being the strongest and meanest person in your neighborhood. And it's not just for the typical feel-good reason either, "survivalists" are not always the best people to advance the race as a whole. If it were up to the "kill or be killed" folks, we'd all live in really well defended caves.

The police can't be everywhere at once, obviously, but they should damn sure TRY to protect people when they can. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing. A police officer can't sit outside your house 24/7, but if a woman calls 9/11 saying someone is trying to break into her house, the police shouldn't say "well, she should have got a gun" and go back to watching Law and Order reruns.

None of this ignores the fact that if you CAN defend yourself, you're better off...but I'm tired of the lone wolf attitude, mostly because tough talk aside, it really doesn't work for everyone.