| Author |
Message |
    
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1884
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 8:48 am: | 
|
With help from the New Jersey Libertarian party, the proposed anti-gang legislation was taken out of play last night. It was a glorious victory against an attempt to curtail our constitutionally protected right to assemble. ignoring for a moment the obvious racial overtones of the proposed ordinance and the constitutionally checkered past of similarly proposed legislation in other communities, the proposed ordinance was in fat preempted by state law and would have been invalid. thank god a Maplewood representative of the Libertarian party was able to protect the rights granted us by our constitution and to show the town council the error that was about to be made and saved this town from what could have been some costly legal problems. |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1565
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 8:59 am: |
|
yeah! that was unfreaking unbelievable! what they were trying to do was pure insanity!!! thanks to the libertarians, we are all saved!!! |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1885
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 10:08 am: |
|
I KNOW!!! IT WAS AWESOME!!!! |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4947
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 10:53 am: |
|
Not awesome at all... "GANG" loitering in Maplewood will be curtailed and our constitutionally protected rights to safeguard our communities from these undesirables will prevail. There's more than one way to skin a cat... |
HOMMELL
Citizen
Username: Hommell
Post Number: 97
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 11:12 am: |
|
let's skin the cat |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1888
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 11:25 am: |
|
our constitutionally protected rights to safeguard our communities from these undesirables will prevail.
as opposed to our constituionally guaranteed right of assembly and protection against false accusation. the ordinance stated that one did not have to be a gang member to be labeled one by the police. merely the suspicion. the ordinance, while not only being unconstitutional, also gave our police way too much power. it was a simple case of an attempt to erode our constitutionally guaranteed rights.
The ACLU has done extensive studies on like ordinances and finds disturbing racial stereotyping takes place. they also have reams of documentation that show these sorts of ordinances do nothing to decrease gang related crime.
the ordinance is simple case of pandering to the voters while providing no actual relief from gang related crime. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13422
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 11:55 am: |
|
I agree that this is good progress. (Is that redundant?)
I disagree that it was an attempt to erode our constitutional rights. I believe that if the ordinances had passed, the effect would have eroded our rights, but it wasn't the goal.
|
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1892
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 12:58 pm: |
|
of course it wasnt the goal. it would have been the result. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1893
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 12:59 pm: |
|
by the way, i looked for you at the meeting and was sorely disappointed not to see you. |
Hank Zona
Supporter
Username: Hankzona
Post Number: 5421
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 1:04 pm: |
|
we saw you, Lib..you seemed kind of anxious |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1895
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 1:07 pm: |
|
i was agitated due to boredom. that green acres thing went on for over 3 hours. i was desperate for the yankee score.
i saw you too. you sexy thing you. |
Hank Zona
Supporter
Username: Hankzona
Post Number: 5422
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 1:12 pm: |
|
your overture will go unrequited...Im off the market.
and its a long season (which may or not be a reference to the Yankees game). |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1897
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 1:20 pm: |
|
not even a small discreet pinch? |
steel
Citizen
Username: Steel
Post Number: 1012
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 2:11 pm: |
|
Nobody should get their shorts in a bunch if they are disturbed that the "Libertarian"
raised a valid legal point as regards the local proposed ordinance vs what the state has yet legally "enabled" a municipality to enact. (Although I'm sure that he would like to take the "credit".)
It seemed to me that after waiting patiently for hours the Libertarian simply beat the town attorney to the punch by moments as the attorney was, (I hope dutifully) about to point out to the TC that the state is presently about to debate, (next month) almost the precise language that the TC was proposing regarding "gang assemblage etc".
-In other words the TC could have mistakenly tried to enact an ordinance that is not yet legally "enabled" by the state government, (and shall no doubt be challenged due to the concerns of "right to assembly" that the Libertarian raises), from whence our local TC and police derives it's power.
-The mistake could have been that our ordinance would have ended up challenged uselessly and expensively in court as I suspect the state law may well be as it tries to go forward.
-Many people speak of always trusting the police. Many others do not and have good reason not to, (although they would be well advised to presently trust our local officers in my judgment).
-But trust in present time or place is not the sole criteria for either support or suspicion of such laws as for either this or the dreaded surveillance cameras, (which have been partially budgeted for BTW).
-Such measures always have to be examined as to their incremental effect over the long haul and CANNOT always be viewed with the presumption that the guys with the badges will always-and-forever be the "good guys". -To do so is a dereliction of duty and an abandonment of the wise protections of the constitution written by those who understood abuse of power. Even if you choose to believe that those in authority will always be "good", -they certainly sometimes will be "wrong" about other person's business or intent in such judgment and thus inevitably and tragically ensues either a sense of, or worse, - the reality of, injustice, anger, fear, persecution etc etc etc.
I find it interesting that in a largely "liberal" town as this that the majority of people wish to faithfully and forever trust the good graces and high integrity of all local authorities and grant them what powers they wish yet daily, -DAILY bemoan the myriad and dazzling abuses of government on all other levels outside the confines of our 4 square miles.
-There are many forms of "protection" and all sorts of "threats" to freedom and quality of life. Many of those protections are laws written to protect us not against other individuals but aganist those who purport to protect us. A threat doesn't always need come from an individual and it doesn't always matter what you look like or that you are "doing nothing wrong" -not just now but deep into an uncertain future which is best protected now. -"how?", is the argument.
-Play ball.
|
fredprofeta
Citizen
Username: Fredprofeta
Post Number: 120
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 2:14 pm: |
|
The gang loitering ordinance will be back on the TC agenda in due course. It was on for final passage last night, after having received a 5-0 vote on introduction. Before we entertained a motion for final passage, our township attorney informed us that there are 2 identical bills pending in the Legislature which focus on gang dangers and specifically authorize municipalities to pass ordinances nearly identical to Maplewood's proposal. But, by implication, if the Legislature has to specifically authorize this kind of ordinance, the power of municipalities to pass them does not now already exist. One could argue otherwise, but our attorney was taking a properly conservative position, and advised us not to entertain the ordinance until the Legislature acts on the bills. Inasmuch as the Legislature is fully cognizant of gang dangers, there is little expectation that the bills will fail. Assuming that they do pass, Maplewood's ordinance will be put back on for passage. |
John Caffrey
Citizen
Username: Jerseyjack
Post Number: 157
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 2:23 pm: |
|
The ordinance would have punished assembly of certain groups of people and punished people based on association: specifically based on pre-determined criteria. This would violate the 1st. Amendment.
For instance, now in simplified form, I don't believe I will be punished when I attend the next Maplewood Peace and Action demonstration. That is because I am older than the young people who were to be targeted by the ordinance. However, it is likely that the players in the first Little League game of the season could be arrested if they hang around after the game to discuss the game. They could be ordered to disburse since they are young people and the ordinance was aimed at young people. Also, they would be carrying weapons (bats).
It would also be a form of prior restraint. This means that you can't arrest someone because you think they might commit some crime in some future time.
Thanks, Libertarian, for being on top of this. |
steel
Citizen
Username: Steel
Post Number: 1013
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 2:49 pm: |
|
I agree with our Mayor that this (type) bill will pass in the state legislature, (who wants to be seen seeming to protect "gangs").
However, I would also predict that it will be quickly challenged in the courts precisely for the type reasons cited by John Caffrey and others. -Thus it may well be awhile before Maplewood could enact such an ordinance as presently worded without risk of similar challenge.
-We shall see. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1900
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 3:09 pm: |
|
It seemed to me that after waiting patiently for hours the Libertarian simply beat the town attorney to the punch by moments as the attorney was, (I hope dutifully) about to point out to the TC that the state is presently about to debate, (next month) almost the precise language that the TC was proposing regarding "gang assemblage etc".
based on a letter sent by us. otherwise this preemption issue might well have been "overlooked" .
as for the future, if there is an attempt to pass this ordinance as worded, i can 100% guarantee that there will be a legal challenge. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1901
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 3:11 pm: |
|
Thanks, Libertarian, for being on top of this.
my pleasure. its why libertarians exist, to protect the basic rights as written in the constitution of this fine nation. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13435
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 3:19 pm: |
|
it was a simple case of an attempt to erode our constitutionally guaranteed rights.
See, this is where you could be more careful with your wording.
The erosion would have been incidental, which is just as bad, but intent is important.
|
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4951
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 3:21 pm: |
|
Right, we shall see... So, in the mean time does this mean we can still all carry our weapons (bats)?  |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1903
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 3:21 pm: |
|
1. it would not have been incidental
2. i assumed that i was writing to an audience of adults and that i didnt need to spell everything out in a patronizing manner in order for the reader to understand my obvious intent.
lesson learned. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13437
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 3:25 pm: |
|
Obvious is in the eye of the beholder. I didn't mean to be patronizing. Do you? I'm just saying that it's a poor choice of words, considering that you agree that erosion of rights is not the TC's goal. It's more a case of not minding the importance of rights adequately.
|
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1904
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 3:27 pm: |
|
ACLU Questions Chicago's Plan to Return to Failed "Anti-Gang Loitering" Strategy (1/11/2000)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CHICAGO, IL -- Pointing to a lack of statistical evidence in support of its action and the absence of other serious anti-gang efforts, the ACLU of Illinois today questioned the City of Chicago's plan to reintroduce a so-called anti-gang loitering ordinance.
The first ordinance, adopted and implemented in 1992, was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in June, 1999.
In questioning the need to return to the discredited gang loitering strategy, the ACLU cited a recent study conducted by University of Chicago Law School Professor Stephen Schulhofer analyzing crime statistics in each of Chicago's police districts over the past few years.
According to Professor Schulholfer's thorough and comprehensive analysis, the City cannot claim that the anti-gang loitering ordinance was successful in reducing crime. Indeed, the University of Chicago study shows that the three year enforcement of the previous law "failed to produce detectable evidence of a beneficial effect on violence."
"It is simply myth to claim that the original ordinance was effective in terms of crime control," said Harvey Grossman, Legal Director for the ACLU of Illinois, who successfully argued against the first ordinance before the Illinois Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of the United States.
"The rate of reduction in violent crime for Chicago actually increased after the law's enforcement had been suspended. Given this conclusive evidence, one wonders why city leaders are so anxious to implement again a law that resulted in more than 40,000 young people -- most of them African-American and Latino -- being harassed and arrested simply for being on the streets of their neighborhoods."
"The City says the ordinance is absolutely necessary because local community groups want more done to abate gang activity and violence in their neighborhoods," Grossman added. "The people of Chicago, however, should not be confronted with the false choice between tolerating violent crime and accepting the tired, failed strategy of street sweeps. To think that a city as great as this one would continue to link itself to failed policies of the past with no more creative thought does an injustice to the greatest strength of this city -- our people."
Ironically, the University of Chicago study demonstrates conclusively that some violent crime rates actually increased in the police districts where the previous gang loitering law was most vigorously enforced. As a startling example of this irony, murders citywide fell by 12 percent between 1992 to 1995 (the years during which the previous ordinance was being enforced) but increased by 3 percent in the police districts that were targeted for heavy enforcement under the loitering ordinance.
The ACLU also questioned today how the new ordinance would be different from the previous effort in implementation and enforcement. The first gang loitering ordinance resulted in thousands of persons being targeted for arrest and harassment while engaging in no illegal or illicit activity.
Indeed, as court documents in the Supreme Court case demonstrated, some individuals were arrested while walking to the store, others for simply visiting with friends on a street corner and, in one instance, for being out in one's own front yard. These "street sweep" methods have been part of law enforcement in Chicago for nearly a half century, resulting in a massive number of arrests under "stop and frisk" policies or for "disorderly conduct."
"The City knows that innocent persons will be swept up in the enforcement of this new ordinance, especially if it implement with the type of paramilitary sweeps that marked enforcement of the original gang loitering ordinance," Grossman said. "The real result of this practice is the development of deep-seated alienation and distrust towards the police among the targets of such action, usually innocent young men of color. Such alienation fosters a sad 'us against them' mentality in large areas of our City that does a disservice to the entire community's best interest."
The ACLU has long supported and endorsed a variety of measures to address the problems of criminal activity by street gangs. The organization has noted that the city could utilize police resources to foster neighborhood initiatives, including "affirmative loitering,"' where citizens occupy street corners (with police support) in order to drive away street crime. The ACLU also has suggested using community policing organizations to sponsor more "Take Back the Streets" events which have the dual benefit of driving away criminals and uniting communities.
Finally, the ACLU has cited anti-gang programs in Boston and elsewhere that link targeted law enforcement efforts against street gangs with additional resources for community programs that give young people an alternative to participation in gangs and gang activity.
|
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1905
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 3:35 pm: |
|
Obvious is in the eye of the beholder. I didn't mean to be patronizing. Do you? I'm just saying that it's a poor choice of words, considering that you agree that erosion of rights is not the TC's goal. It's more a case of not minding the importance of rights adequately.
as for being patronizing, sorry but you bring it out in me. you always seem to want to debate some tiresome minutae that detracts from the real point of the thread. i dont understand why you do it. it frustrates me and then i become patronizing because i feel i have to stop the flow of the thread to crouch down and explain what i see as a minor and obvious point or intent. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13440
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 4:09 pm: |
|
This time around, I had absolutely no bad thoughts or feelings towards you. I really meant no ill will. Maybe you assumed otherwise?
I think my point was more than minutiae, but I see you disagree. Please don't refer to me as being at a crouching level. That doesn't come off as respectful to me.
|
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1908
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 4:58 pm: |
|
it illustrated how i feel when i am side tracked into explaining the previously mentioned minutae. Please dont try to stifle or marginalize my feelings and opinions.
now do you think we can talk about the actual topic or do we need to pass the talking drum some more, iron john?
|
HOMMELL
Citizen
Username: Hommell
Post Number: 102
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 9:28 pm: |
|
 |
johnny
Citizen
Username: Johnny
Post Number: 1614
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 9:55 pm: |
|
Why don't we use the laws that are already on the books in order to curb gang behavior? |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1921
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 10:30 pm: |
|
exactly!!!
or why dont we exhort our representatives to do something about the root cause, the illegality of drugs. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page