There is a troubling case out of Harris County, Texas where a court has issued an order barring 16 individuals from a Houston neighborhood on the ground that prosecutors alleged that they are gang members up to no good. However, this was a civil proceeding where the 16 individuals were neither given representation nor were present. The precedent established by such a public nuisance ruling is chilling if prosecutors can bar citizens from neighborhoods based on associations or future conduct.
Prosecutors told the court that the 16 individuals are members of various gangs, including the Bloods, Crips and Most Wanted gangs from entering the area. They have now been declared human public nuisances by the Texas court and can now be enjoined from being in the area.
Laura Cahill, senior assistant county attorney, insists that “This is a way to clean up certain areas where there has been a lot of gang activity.” It is also a wonderful tool for more authoritarian designs if people can now be declared akin to pollution as a public nuisance. What prevents other neighborhoods then banning the same or other individuals? Presumably, other neighbors will not want to take this curious form of a negative externality from nearby neighborhoods.
While five police officers testified, the decision was not based on the criminal standard of proof of a crime: beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, the individuals were not afforded representation and did not appear. Notably, the prosecutors wanted to ban 28 individuals but could only find 16 to serve.
Now, any of these individuals who are found in the neighborhood can face a year in jail. These orders, in my view, violate core constitutional guarantees and present a serious threat to civil liberties. If successful, it would invite the creation list of persona non grata individuals barred from travel within cities or even states.
What do you think?
Source: ABC and Live Sciences
Max-1, here is my attempt:
Keeping neighborhoods safer…
… One assault at a time.
Tremaine McMillian, 14-Year-Old With Puppy, Choked By Miami-Dade Police Over ‘Dehumanizing Stares’
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/tremaine-mcmillian-14-year-old-miami-dade-police_n_3362340.html
Jay,
Take the link from your browser, make sure it is the direct link and not the hot link or embedded link. Copy and paste. Done.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/embed/fz4K-R8ZlhU]
I pretty much agree with everything here and most of the regular posters.
On an unrelated note, evidently someone needs to tell me how to embed a youtube video in this thread.
Dredd,
In that vein, may I offer this timeless wisdom on political lexicon and its intent/abuse:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz4K-R8ZlhU&w=420&h=315%5D
Orwell’s jaw would be scuffed from dragging on the floor.
Up-thread I said:
The dictionary defines “extreme” as:
Consider this then:
The point is that our culture seeks to mold us into a “normal”, which means not criticizing the wrongs of the establishment.
The tired pols can’t handle stand-ups who stand up to say “we are off track.”
Remember that when “extremist” is used to describe someone politicians do not like, it may be because those “extremists” are better citizens than those pols.
“Extreme” is not the same thing as “bad” or “illegal.”
artiewhitefox, when they start peppering you with questions, lawyer up. Do NOT, I repeat, do NOT, give up your bartender! #spottingdrunkcommentiseasy
Sorry >.> I got the letters of on turned around. I corrected that. Jesus was always on a watch list. Religious people did that trying to make their body that is not better than another seem to be better making themselves believe a lie. People don’t teach people that alcohol is a mocker and that strong drink is raging. That is why people do what they do with alcohol. People are not getting at the root of the problem. Had people have Jesus in them we would not have bars in the first place. Had we have people with Jesus in them thought of banning would not exist. Satan has that concept in him because he was banned from being in Gods glory.
oK, so the reaction could be that the gang members join together,then we see who has the biggest d**k
Crap! I’m on a watchlist now, aren’t I?
Jesus was always no a watch list. Religious people did that trying to make their body that is no better than another seem to be better making themselves believe a lie.
Good news for the prosecutors, cuz the testimony of 5 officers, if my calculations are correct, equates to 5x more reasonable doubt than is necessary for a Not Guilty verdict under normal circumstances.
So local jurisdictions can declre citizens a threat to society without proper Due Process afforded the accused?
Makes sense, when put into perspective that the current DOJ does the same thing to other “undesirables” in society and drone them into tiny bits of flesh, bone and blood.
Like a snake, the evil starts not with the rattler but rather the venom at the head.
Why are Lawyers NOT in the streets?
Dredd:
I wonder if the FBI’s Operation Vigilant Eagle has a genesis in the Vietnam Veterans Against War. I don’t mean those vets did anything wrong, I am just wondering if our gov’t had done any kind of investigation of them back in the late 60’s / early 70’s and that type of policy led to this new operation.
Also, them naming this Operation Vigilant Eagle has somewhat of a parallel nomenclature to how our gov’t now describes wars: Operation Desert Storm; Operation Noble Anvil; Operation Restore Hope, etc.
Speed bumps were first put into upscale neighborhoods to discourage
certain people from driving on their streets. The idea was sold as a safety measure to get people to drive slower.
This Houston measure is similar in goals. The sales pitch is just more
honest.
J.T. “…a court has issued an order barring 16 individuals from a Houston neighborhood on the ground that prosecutors alleged that they are gang members up to no good.”
Notice. Prosecutors ALLEGED. There was no proof shown that this was the case. Maybe they WERE ‘gangbangers’ and maybe they were wannabees. Point is that there was no PROOF they were. ‘Minority Report’ comes to mind.
P Smith 1, May 30, 2013 at 1:13 pm
…
Dredd (12:07pm) –
…
That policy clearly has nothing to do with “extremist threats” everything to do with silencing criticism. It’s no different than the cowardly silencing of Wikileaks.
============================
Preaching to the choir bro.
Keep up the good work.
Charming. A person could be “barred” from an area without knowing it, and be charged with trespassing and imprisoned for driving down a public road through that area. Why not shoot them on sight and get it over with if people are going to be denied a fair hearing or to face their accusers?
And who is going to decide, on what basis? Banning idiots from neighborhoods for playing music at 100 decibels would be great, but that’s obviously not the intent of that “law”. The goal is to criminalize unpopular people – the homeless, minorities, people of certain sexual orientations or religious views, etc.
—–
Dredd (12:07pm) – There have been many who took part in the two illegal wars and are speaking out. That policy clearly has nothing to do with “extremist threats” everything to do with silencing criticism. It’s no different than the cowardly silencing of Wikileaks.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/18/17326297-ten-years-after-iraq-invasion-us-troops-ask-was-it-worth-it?lite
ASBO’s come to Texas. Who woulda thunk it? It’s so British!
The legal system needs to die. All people behold is Satan in the legal system, and people wonder why people do not behave like Jesus. Satan thinks ban this and ban that because Lucifer was banned from God presence. It is Hell to him.