‘Public Safety Zones’ Could Allow Police To Keep People Out Of Public Areas

Hmmm... Interesting, So if someone was convicted of marijuana possession they may be banned from any part of the city that is "designated" a Public Safety Zone? What happens if your current job is in one? What if you live in an area they suddenly declare a "Public Safety Area" You can be arrested and charged for merely going to work or being in the area?

If this takes off, what prevents a whole city from declaring it is a Public Safety Zone? Kind of an express way to take care of crime, if you ever are charged with one, you are banished from the City with threat of arrest if you return!


www.charlotteobserver.com...

CMPD considers no-go areas for "criminals"

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department and Charlotte City Council are discussing whether to create “public safety zones,” city areas where people with past arrests would be prohibited from entering.

Under the controversial proposal, Chief Kerr Putney could designate a high-crime area as a safety zone in response to crimes such as drug sales or discharging guns that were committed on public property.

Someone who has been arrested for crimes in the area could be issued a notice that they are no longer allowed to enter, for as long as the safety zone is in effect. Entering the zone after being prohibited would be a misdemeanor.

The bans could be appealed for reasons that include entering the area to go to work or to pick up a child from school.

The idea isn’t new to Charlotte.

I honestly dont think that'sa good idea haha, this idea would let all kinds of.. Interesting happening occur a reply to: infolurker

Move along Citizen...nothing to see here...

a reply to: infolurker
That's a very slippery slope to get on. Just who decides who to ban and who not to ban. Sooner or later the deciders would come to the conclusion that poor people are responsable for the majority of the crimes (whether guilty or not) and they would blanket ban all poor people.
And how many times have you heard about rich people getting away with crimes? They would never be banned. A very slippery slope indeed.

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: infolurker
That's a very slippery slope to get on. Just who decides who to ban and who not to ban. Sooner or later the deciders would come to the conclusion that poor people are responsable for the majority of the crimes (whether guilty or not) and they would blanket ban all poor people.
And how many times have you heard about rich people getting away with crimes? They would never be banned. A very slippery slope indeed.

Ha! Think if an entire State did this. If you are convicted of any crime, you are banished.

Crime problems solved (in their way of thinking).

a reply to: infolurker

We didn't stop "Free Speech Zones" so I find it quite believable that we the people will continue to allow our dictators to steam roll right thru our Constitutional rights as they have been.

Sad I have to believe that way, but it is what it is at this point in our countries demise.

a reply to: infolurker

What an underhanded, sneaky and disgusting way of driving up real estate prices. There will probably be a 25% to 100% premium, based on property taxes and real estate prices, just to live in one of these allegedly crime free areas. And there won't be any less crime, it's all smoke and mirrors for the politically correct and weak minded masses.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: infolurker
Hmmm... Interesting, So if someone was convicted of marijuana possession they may be banned from any part of the city that is "designated" a Public Safety Zone? What happens if your current job is in one?

The bans could be appealed for reasons that include entering the area to go to work or to pick up a child from school.

You answered your own question. I would assume that would also be true if you live there. Common sense.

God help those that live in the "public safety zone" when they venture outside their private little heaven into a felons lair.

Bring on the dystopian nightmare....I'm ready!

a reply to: infolurker

I wonder what sort of 'papers' might be necessary to establish one's lawful presence in these public zones?

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: infolurker

I wonder what sort of 'papers' might be necessary to establish one's lawful presence in these public zones?

Papers....? Your position will be determined by your DNA and pedigree. Can you measure up?

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: greencmp

Gotta have your crime free ID.

I don't like this idea one bit, people paid their dues if they served their sentence.

Does the United States have an equivalent of the "Antisocial Behaviour Order" (ASBO), which might be used to keep individuals out of specified areas?
ASBO
This would normally be tailored to the specific case. I noticed in the local paper a couple of years back that one youth had been barred, for a period of time, from entering my street or the store at the top of the street.
It strikes me as a possible parallel.

a reply to: olaru12

That's right, I had been expecting a bicycle license as the precursor to the "walking license" though.

That was the only argument I could conceive of for sacrificing a lane of legitimate traffic to bicycle lanes.

So, bicycle insurance and then pedestrian insurance and registration.

a reply to: infolurker

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

I thought doing time in jail was the punishment, I thought fines were the punishment.

Why do we effectively stop past criminals from being able to reform by denying them jobs and pushing stupid ideas like this?

If we keep discriminating people for past mistakes then why should they reform?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: greencmp

Gotta have your crime free ID.

I don't like this idea one bit, people paid their dues if they served their sentence.

Besides the sinister dual use of these measures, without even considering the implications to innocent passers by, I can't understand how everyone tolerates new laws against drug offenders when everyone agrees that the drug laws are bad.

Why is that?

a reply to: greencmp

Well I think the amount of people that think drugs laws are bad are still a minority.

a reply to: infolurker

“We were looking for additional tools that could address some of the criminal behavior,” Austin said. “We want something more flexible.”

Of course they want something more "flexible." They want to be able to bend the "law" to whatever it is that they see fit in whatever circumstance they want. They want to be able to apply the law in the best way possible FOR THEM.

In addition to the injunction against gang members, the city has used a public nuisance ordinance, which gives it the ability to seize private property from owners who continually have police come to their property.

While we're at it, let's just flexibly seize private property just so we don't have to deal with the "nuisance" any longer.

This doesn't surprise me coming from Charlotte, or the police, or in America.

More Police State BS that people bend over and take.

But just to point out when the OP asks

What happens if your current job is in one?

The bans could be appealed for reasons that include entering the area to go to work or to pick up a child from school.

They have to be "appealed" first," but the answer to your question partially lies in the article."What are you doing in a safety zone?" "I'm going to WORK!!" "You're breaking the law, take it to the judge!"

Man, I swear I've seen this movie a few times. Scary.

Welcome Police State.

a reply to: reldra

LOL, devil in the details.

"Could be Appealed" doesn't mean "Appeal is granted".

As another poster mentioned, making it illegal for someone who has "paid their debt to society" to enter one of these "Zones" is pretty much making Iraq style "Green Zones" here in the US.

How do they enforce it? A chip? A Real I.D. with a chip in it? Vehicle tags are already chipped right?