Charleston Loitering Ban/Illicit Drug Sale Prevention

[SwanSushi]

North Charleston, SC - The city of North Charleston makes loitering a
crime after council voted unanimously Thursday evening to pass an anti-
loitering ordinance.


These North Charleston streets are empty Thursday night...more likely
because of the chilly weather than the city's new anti-loitering law.
It's doubtful news travels that fast...or maybe it does.


"Now that we have this law and it went into effect...be aware! I'm
warning them to be aware. North Charleston will come after you and I
will support them 100%," says North Charleston City Councilwoman
Dorothy Williams.


But supporting and enforcing are two different things. And North
Charleston Police Chief Jon Zumalt is well aware of
that...acknowledging the tricky line between Constitutional rights and
illegal activity.


"The right to free assembly is a Constitutional right. We're not
going to try to infringe on that privilege. That's not what we're
going to try to use this law for. It's to help us with those areas
where we've had over time consistent problems with crack cocaine sales
and other illegal behavior," says Zumalt.


Areas the Chief didn't want to reveal. Under the city's
ordinance..."no person shall loiter or prowl in a place or in a manner
not usual for law-abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant
alarm for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity." And
those places include dwelling areas, school grounds, restaurants, and
parking lots just to name a few. Over the next few days Zumalt says
he'll talk with the city's attorney and work on developing training
for the officers...who should be ready to tackle the issue of
loitering in the next few weeks.


Williams says there's no racial motivation behind the ordinance and
that the new law will only have positive results.
Under the ordinance, before police make an arrest the suspect will
have the opportunity to identity himself and explain his "presence and
conduct." The ACLU says it will pay close attention to this ordinance
and may even consider challenging it.


The City of Charleston passed its anti-loitering ordinance last
November.

[Felonious Skunk]

Originally Posted by SwanSushi

"Now that we have this law and it went into effect...be aware! I'm warning them to be aware. North Charleston will come after you and I will support them 100%," says North Charleston City Councilwoman Dorothy Williams.

People like Miss Williams really solidify for me what Plato was talking about in The Republic when he said that those fit to rule would not want the job. And without getting nasty, Ms. W is not a philosopher-queen.

Originally Posted by SwanSushi

But supporting and enforcing are two different things. And North Charleston Police Chief Jon Zumalt is well aware of
that...acknowledging the tricky line between Constitutional rights and
illegal activity.

Yeah. That pesky document known as the Constitution. The bane of legislators and law enforcement everywhere. I've got a solution to that problem. Considering the fact that it's printed on hemp paper and therefore contains trace amounts of THC, on those grounds let's just declare it illegal and submit it to the DEA for incineration. They can videotape the event to put up on their website as more smoke & mirrors to deflect attention away from the fact that they can't even stop 1% of the shit coming in to the US. Oh, I'm digressing...

Originally Posted by SwanSushi

"The right to free assembly is a Constitutional right. We're not going to try to infringe on that privilege. That's not what we're going to try to use this law for. It's to help us with those areas
where we've had over time consistent problems with crack cocaine sales
and other illegal behavior," says Zumalt.

I'm impressed. It seems the executive branch of government has a better grip on what the Constitution means than the legislative one.

Originally Posted by SwanSushi

...Under the city's
ordinance..."no person shall loiter or prowl in a place or in a manner
not usual for law-abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant
alarm for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity." And
those places include dwelling areas, school grounds, restaurants, and
parking lots just to name a few. Over the next few days Zumalt says
he'll talk with the city's attorney and work on developing training
for the officers...who should be ready to tackle the issue of
loitering in the next few weeks.

So, in this city at least, law enforcement has been granted the power to dictate where "law-abiding" individuals can be, and what circumstances allow them to be in those places.

This is stupid law written by stupid people. They shouldn't be surprised if one day they find their heads on the ends of sticks...

[Police Officer]

Originally Posted by Felonious Skunk

So, in this city at least, law enforcement has been granted the power to dictate where "law-abiding" individuals can be, and what circumstances allow them to be in those places.

No, because it's an ordinance. It is a law made by the city. The city is dictating where "law-abiding" individuals can be, and what circumstances allow them to be in those places.

[Felonious Skunk]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

No, because it's an ordinance. It is a law made by the city. The city is dictating where "law-abiding" individuals can be, and what circumstances allow them to be in those places.

If this is true, then the city will have created detailed maps of all the public areas deemed both appropriate and not appropriate for "law-abiding" citizens to be in, and furthermore, will have created a profile of what a "law-abiding" citizen looks look.

If this is not true, then the city will have granted the power unto law enforcement to use their judgement in determining what constitutes an area that is not fit for someone fitting the "law-abiding" citizen profile to be in.

In either case, it's only fair to "law-abiding" citizens that the city should make it clear exactly where the forbidden zones are so they don't venture into them and risk being stopped, searched, and labeled a "law-unabiding" citizen.

I bring these points up only because I, for one, have a big problem with letting people like Ms. Williams hijack my freedom to travel through public places as I please. If I'm walking to the store in an "Area Where Narcotics Are In Use," and the city has an ordinance that allows LE to stop me solely for the reason I am in that area, then it is the city's responsibility to put a sign up that says "Area Where Narcotics Are In Use."

In this way I can decide if I want to be in the area or not. But of course the city won't erect the sign because it would embarrass them and the business owners in such areas would sue the shit out of town hall.

The point ultimately being, passing such ordinances is irresponsible and accomplishes nothing except eroding civil rights for the sake of a few petty drug pops.

[Nagognog2]

And moving away from your home area is a bitch. To stand up against to the legal ordinance is dangerous to career and freedom in places. Allow me to exemplify...

First let's analyize the reason for this ordinance: People are lingering on the nice, clean street. Does this raise or reduce the potential realty value?

Do the members of the City Council have a vested interest in the realty prices? Find out.

Now an example: Where I lived, a young woman was tutoring me in math. She could no longer come to my home. I had to travel. I asked her why.-

"I reported a problem with noise. The conservation land near my house was filled with bulldozers and trucks. I said it was conservation land and this shouldn't be happeneing. Then the police came to my door and told me if I didn't shut the fuck( their words), my life would be Hell! I was told to go withdraw my complaint."

"The next thing I knew my car was towed away. Then I was arrested. I had to pay $500 to get out of jail for having an un-registered vhicle on my property. I can't afford it. So you have to come here for math lessons."

She never got her car back. They kept charging her more and more money for it. She left town.

The conservation land is filled with a condominium complex, and a sewer-pipe draining into the wetlands. The police were used as soldiers to enforce the monetary gain of the city-council. Get the picture? This happens all to frequently.

[Police Officer]

Originally Posted by Nagognog2

The conservation land is filled with a condominium complex, and a sewer-pipe draining into the wetlands. The police were used as soldiers to enforce the monetary gain of the city-council. Get the picture? This happens all to frequently.

Thats apples and oranges buddy. We're talking about drug dealers who hang out on street corners selling narcotics. Thats what the ordinance is directed at.

And if that story is true and complete (they never are), then your friend should go see her states attorney.

[fnord]

Originally Posted by Police Ocifer

And if that story is true and complete (they never are), .

dosent it bother you that your job has caused you to loose all trust/faith in other human beings?

ordinances like this are messed up,why hasent the ACLU tried to challenge it yet?are ther no grounds or are they waiting for a few plaintiffs for a lawsuit/whatever?