In D.C.'s Trinidad, Police to Set Up Checkpoints

By Allison Klein and Debbi Wilgoren
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, June 4, 2008; 1:29 PM

D.C. police will stop cars and question drivers along a main thoroughfare of the Trinidad neighborhood starting this Saturday, Mayor Adrian M. Fenty said, in an unprecedented effort to stanch a rash of shootings in that part of Northeast Washington.

The "Neighborhood Safety Zones" program announced this morning is a response to a triple slaying in Trinidad at 4 a.m. Friday, and other recent violence. In the 5th police district, which includes Trinidad, 22 people have been killed so far this year, one more than in all of 2007.

Fenty appeared with D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier and interim Attorney General Peter J. Nickles to announce the new program, which will begin on Saturday in Trinidad and could last up to 10 days.

Officials said police will stop all cars driving in the 1400 block of Montello Avenue, between Penn Street and Oates Street and about a block east of Gallaudet University.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/04/AR2008060402205_pf.html

They're for our own good, after all. If you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to fear.

Yes, it's :sarcasm:

This idea of theirs sucks. But if the police are supposed to cut down the shootings, this is one of the ways they have to go about it.

Which is probably how the SCOTUS is going to rule in a couple weeks.

How young should the ones allowed to carry be? Six? I mean they're at risk from gunmen, they should armed too.

Concealed carry has its place, but it is certainly not the resolution to the problems in Washington, Philly or Detroit.

First, let's keep the Reductio ad absurdum to a minimum, shall we?

Second, Pennsylvania and Michigan are already "shall issue" states. That is to say, if a person meets the qualification to carry a concealed carry permit (age, no felonies, etc), then the respective states must issue a concealed carry permit.

Third, DC has one of the lowest incidents of firearm ownership in the country (~3.8%) compared to Michigan (~38.4%) and Pennsylvania (~34.7%) (Link) DC does, on the other hand, FAR outstrip both Michigan and Pennsylvania in rates of homicide (Per 100,000 - DC: 40.3, MI: 6.7, and PA: 5.3) (Link)

Hmmm...the two states you list, both of which have "shall issue" concealed carry laws, have murder rates FAR below that of DC, where concealed carry is outlawed.

See below. Sorry.

The police should not stop citizens without reason to believe that the person being stopped is engaged in a crime. This is a fishing expedition-- one of the hallmarks of the police state. There are many ways to solve crimes and to prevent them that don't infringe on citizens' freedom from police harassment. They could begin by taking it as axiomatic that such freedoms are not to be infringed for the convenience of authorities. And for that matter, if crimes CANNOT be solved or prevented without trampling the rights of citizens, then those crimes are simply not worth preventing, IMO. They're the price of living in a free and open society.

Don't do anything isn't a solution. The Constitution makes a poor bulletproof vest. The people who live in these areas must just resign to being shot, with no action at all?

So, what is your recommendation? Roving bands of vigilantes in the street? Everybody who lives there must now move away because nobody is allowed to take action, lest they somehow trample the rights of those who mean to do them harm? The residents of that neighborhood have the right to be there.

Roving bands of vigilantes in the street? Everybody who lives there must now move away because nobody is allowed to take action, lest they somehow trample the rights of those who mean to do them harm?

Where did you get THAT from? I didn't say anything of the sort. I'm not advocating police inaction at all-- I'm saying that certain actions are incompatible with the rights of citizens to not be harassed by the police. The cops should use OTHER methods. And lets not make this entirely the provence of law enforcement, either. Paying living wages, creating jobs rather than out sourcing labor, using legislation to better the lives of people rather than the profits of corporations, funding social programs, creating hope instead of dispair-- those are all components of SOLUTIONS to this problem rather than REACTIONS. The city is dropping the ball and leaving the police department to clean up the mess. It isn't going to work-- and in the process the cops are going to implement exactly the wrong responses for a free society.

Look, there is always a certain amount of violence that's proportional to the density of human population-- that's part of the human condition, IMO. Dealing with that is the job of law enforcement. When the level of violent crime exceeds that background level the failure is rarely in LE, however-- it's more likely the failure of broader social institutions, often failing for long periods of time. Cops harassing citizens isn't going to address ANY of the problems in DC.

Lucky you.

Our biggest problem here is probably meth labs. I used to live in NE DC however--many years ago-- and worked in SE across the Anacostia River. Can't say I liked it, for sure.

It's amusing how people can go through something like the last eight years and not get the message loud and clear that police powers will always be abused.

I swear, the DC Metro Police are about the most incompetent bunch of fools.

A lot of the streets in that neighborhood dead end into the National Arboretum and Gallaudent.

http://dcist.com/2008/06/04/mpd_to_seal_off.php#comments

I found this comment to be very intersting:

They did this in Bridgeport, CT back in the 1980s, and the neighborhoods targeted were those that were most frequently visited by out-of-town drivers coming in to the city to purchase drugs or sex. I was young, and not paying terribly close attention at the time, but my recollection is that crime actually did decline, at least a little bit. The problem was that several local businesses were destroyed or severely damaged because access to them was obstructed, and local residents were far more inconvenienced by the barricades, closed roads, and constant police contact than the drive-by lawbreakers who were theoretically being targeted.

Any DC DUers who can comment on the potential effect on local businesses, etc?

an unarmed citizenry while the criminals shoot up the neighborhood.

Can they legally do that? I know they can "do" that, but wondering about constitutional or other legalities.

They are out of their fucking minds.