Print Story: Crime-ridden Arkansas town expands 24-hour curfew on Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080813/ap_on_re_us/arkansas_town_curfew&printer=1;_ylt=And3QK12UQuJmTUU356GLg9H2ocA)

Fielder said officers had not arrested anyone for violating the curfew, only questioned people about why they were outside. Those without good answers or acting nervously get additional attention, Fielder said.

I feel for the people of this town, as I am sure they feel that this is what is necessary to get the crime under control. I am sure the ACLU and others will be there soon to express their disagreement.

That's a tough call. A "24 hour curfew" is a misleading term, because it's really just telling the police that they have the authority to stop and check anyone, at any time, for any reason. I mean, you are allowed out of your house only by permission of the local government?

And this quote from the mayor:

The citizens deserve peace, that some infringement on constitutional rights is OK and we have not violated anything as far as the Constitution."

There's just something about the casualness of "some infringment on constitutional rights is OK" that bothers me.

Frankly, I'd ask the state for help before going to the policy they put in place. I can't see them winning a lawsuit, and it looks like it's just waiting to be filed.

There's just something about the casualness of "some infringment on constitutional rights is OK" that bothers me.


Yeah, this bothers me as well. I am rather conflicted because I know the town and its citizens must be frustrated, but there are laws that this country are based on, it is seems that this town is bending those for what they think is the greater good.

must do wonders for the land value

Yeah, this bothers me as well. I am rather conflicted because I know the town and its citizens must be frustrated, but there are laws that this country are based on, it is seems that this town is bending those for what they think is the greater good.


Hasn't the federal govt been bending constitutional laws for decades for the same unconstitutional excuse?

I had a friend tell me about this. The crime level is scary but yet somehow not as frightening as the mayor throwing out The Constitution.

Since someone already brought this up I figured I might as well ask about something that had me scratching my head when I first saw this story last night.

some infringement on constitutional rights is OK and we have not violated anything as far as the Constitution.

Aren't those two phrases pretty contradictory?

I mean, how do you "infringe on constitutional rights" but not "violate anything as far as the Constitution?".

If you infringe upon the rights then don't you have to have violated something Constitutional? And if you haven't violated the Constitution then how can there be an infringement? Just reminded me of the phrase "a little bit pregnant"?

Its a tough delta town. I went to college near by. Every time I went through there I tried to get out of town as quickly as possible.

"As far as I'm concerned, at 3 o'clock in the morning, nobody has any business being on the street, except the law," Councilman Eugene "Red" Johnson said. "Anyone out at 3 o'clock shouldn't be out on the street, unless you're going to the hospital."


Well....in that case, enjoy killing off your city Mr. Councilman.

Since someone already brought this up I figured I might as well ask about something that had me scratching my head when I first saw this story last night.



Aren't those two phrases pretty contradictory?

I mean, how do you "infringe on constitutional rights" but not "violate anything as far as the Constitution?".

If you infringe upon the rights then don't you have to have violated something Constitutional? And if you haven't violated the Constitution then how can there be an infringement? Just reminded me of the phrase "a little bit pregnant"?

I'm pretty sure that's a case of covering your ass. "Oh crap, did I really just say it's okay to infringe upon people's constitutional rights? Better say we're not actually doing that too!"

I'm pretty sure that's a case of covering your ass. "Oh crap, did I really just say it's okay to infringe upon people's constitutional rights? Better say we're not actually doing that too!"

I read it slightly differently. I see it as saying, "You can call it infringing upon constitutional rights and if it is, that'd be ok but in fact, we're not actually doing that.

"Now if somebody wants to sue us, they have an option to sue, but I'm fairly certain that a judge will see it the way the way the citizens see it here," Mayor James Valley said. "The citizens deserve peace, that some infringement on constitutional rights is OK and we have not violated anything as far as the Constitution."

That's what I got from the entire quote.

While I don't agree with what they are forced to resort to I find it an entire level more savory than Sheriff Joe Arpaio's "crime sweeps" where he only stops brown skinned people and basically does the same things to them that these cops are. So far, no one has been able to stop him so I think Mayor Valley has a point.

I could see perhaps such strict laws if they applied to government owned housing and such. But I think those type of places most likely have their own rule set already. To hold the whole town to a standard and increase the rights of the police that much seems like a litigation nightmare.

The quote in my original post scares me a little.

Fielder said officers had not arrested anyone for violating the curfew, only questioned people about why they were outside. Those without good answers or acting nervously get additional attention, Fielder said.

This isn't high school. I shouldn't need a hall pass to go outside.

http://lonelymachines.org/red_dawn/red_dawn02.png

I think most people would say that Constitutional rights can be suspended in the short-term in cases of extreme public danger. But what exactly is this guy's long-term plan? Catch a few thugs via illegal search and seizure and keep them locked up until the case gets thrown out? And then?

I think the bigger issue here is the ghettoization of rural areas that has been taking place over the last few decades. I don't know a lot about it, but Fast Food Nation blames a lot of rural decay on large agri-business, which has been moving large factories to rural areas, polluting the countryside and inviting in non-unionized labor. I'm sure it's an oversimplication of a complex problem, but it does shed some light on how smaller rural communities are disintegrating as family farms become a thing of the past.