Curfews!

AustinBR said:

If there is a curfew in place and someone intentionally goes out driving around, they are breaking the law. An excuse of "exercising muh rights, curfew be illegal" could yield shiny new bracelets and a free ride to somewhere less pleasant. On the contrary, if you are coming from / going to work or are going somewhere where you have a valid reason, it's more likely that you'll be told okay, well please try to stay off the roads and be safe.

Driving around and protesting a curfew is similar to walking around in a Walmart with an AR - it's stupid and is likely illegal.

Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree on the equality.

Curfews are not typically enforced in my neck of the woods. They increase your odds of police contact if you are out and about and if you’re an idiot or a ‘bad guy’ contact may not result in a fun experience. ‘Muh rights’ may work if you don’t behave like a rooster-vacuum.

As I said from the start curfews are a tool to separate the bad guys from the good guys. I don’t think there are any real teeth in these curfews, and the 14th amendment should nullify any ability to charge someone with ‘breaking curfew’. Does it? I don’t know, but if someone’s only ‘crime’ is ‘breaking curfew’ and they are charge it certainly goes against the grain. We are citizens after all not subjects.

DBMJR1 said:

That is your prerogative, but realize:

After Katrina, there was no jail. They used chain link kennels at the train depot to hold prisoners. Those prisoners received swift trials, about a month later when the judges started returning to the city.

You might beat the charges, but do you really want to sit in a dog kennel, in the heat, in the weather, for a month, while you wait for your day in court ?

On the other hand, you might be mistaken for a looter after dark, shot, and never heard from again. Except by the crabs in lower St. Bernard.

Your decision.

Personally, I think a responsible person can take care of all of their necessary business during daylight hours. Only a medical emergency would force me to break curfew.

Click to expand...

I’ve been out during curfews and never had any issues but again I’m not in New Orleans and would never put myself into that situation.

Bangswitch said:

I respectfully disagree on the equality.

Curfews are not typically enforced in my neck of the woods. They increase your odds of police contact if you are out and about and if you’re an idiot or a ‘bad guy’ contact may not result in a fun experience. ‘Muh rights’ may work if you don’t behave like a rooster-vacuum.

As I said from the start curfews are a tool to separate the bad guys from the good guys. I don’t think there are any real teeth in these curfews, and the 14th amendment should nullify any ability to charge someone with ‘breaking curfew’. Does it? I don’t know, but if someone’s only ‘crime’ is ‘breaking curfew’ and they are charge it certainly goes against the grain. We are citizens after all not subjects.

Click to expand...

I don't think we necessarily disagree. If you are out doing something that isn't bad/negative, you probably won't / shouldn't have a problem. My point is that if there is a curfew issued for a certain area and someone is just driving around to show that their rights trump the curfew, and the police deem them violating the curfew and being in the way of emergency services, they can and should go to jail. The point of a curfew isn't to negatively restrict rights - it is to free up roads and resources so emergency services can better do their job to help those in need. One person trying to protest a curfew probably wouldn't cause a big disturbance. But what if it's five? Fifty? 100? At some point arrests would need to be made to enforce the law.

http://www.legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=630905

This looks like the section of the law that makes room for curfews and mandatory evacuations.

AustinBR said:

If there is a curfew in place and someone intentionally goes out driving around, they are breaking the law. An excuse of "exercising muh rights, curfew be illegal" could yield shiny new bracelets and a free ride to somewhere less pleasant. On the contrary, if you are coming from / going to work or are going somewhere where you have a valid reason, it's more likely that you'll be told okay, well please try to stay off the roads and be safe.

Driving around and protesting a curfew is similar to walking around in a Walmart with an AR - it's stupid and is likely illegal.

Click to expand...

What AustinBR said.

AustinBR said:

I don't think we necessarily disagree. If you are out doing something that isn't bad/negative, you probably won't / shouldn't have a problem. My point is that if there is a curfew issued for a certain area and someone is just driving around to show that their rights trump the curfew, and the police deem them violating the curfew and being in the way of emergency services, they can and should go to jail. The point of a curfew isn't to negatively restrict rights - it is to free up roads and resources so emergency services can better do their job to help those in need. One person trying to protest a curfew probably wouldn't cause a big disturbance. But what if it's five? Fifty? 100? At some point arrests would need to be made to enforce the law.

http://www.legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=630905

This looks like the section of the law that makes room for curfews and mandatory evacuations.

Click to expand...

Has anyone really ever been forced to evacuate? I know this last little storm that flooded out Isle De Jean Charles 18 Injuns refused to leave....

and then called in for a ride in a Coast Guard helicopter ...

The sheriffs dept and the local game wardens informed them that the next time....No-one was coming in 60mph winds to rescue them.

AustinBR said:

I don't think we necessarily disagree. If you are out doing something that isn't bad/negative, you probably won't / shouldn't have a problem. My point is that if there is a curfew issued for a certain area and someone is just driving around to show that their rights trump the curfew, and the police deem them violating the curfew and being in the way of emergency services, they can and should go to jail. The point of a curfew isn't to negatively restrict rights - it is to free up roads and resources so emergency services can better do their job to help those in need. One person trying to protest a curfew probably wouldn't cause a big disturbance. But what if it's five? Fifty? 100? At some point arrests would need to be made to enforce the law.

http://www.legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=630905

This looks like the section of the law that makes room for curfews and mandatory evacuations.

Click to expand...

You are correct we don’t disagree in the purpose. And we don’t disagree on its usefulness either. We do however disagree on its enforcement to the extent of prosecution. I don’t think people should roam the streets for poops and giggles during a curfew, but these curfews (at least in my neck of the woods) aren’t going to be enforced and really shouldn’t to the extent of charging someone because he wants to invoke his 14th amendment right. As annoying as it may be, I don’t think it’s worthy of prosecution. It may be worth a terry stop to ‘make sure’ said jackass ‘isn’t up to no good’. That kind of friendly treatment will discourage most people interested in wasting everyone’s time.

Bangswitch said:

You are correct we don’t disagree in the purpose. And we don’t disagree on its usefulness either. We do however disagree on its enforcement to the extent of prosecution. I don’t think people should roam the streets for poops and giggles during a curfew, but these curfews (at least in my neck of the woods) aren’t going to be enforced and really shouldn’t to the extent of charging someone because he wants to invoke his 14th amendment right. As annoying as it may be, I don’t think it’s worthy of prosecution. It may be worth a terry stop to ‘make sure’ said jackass ‘isn’t up to no good’. That kind of friendly treatment will discourage most people interested in wasting everyone’s time.

Click to expand...

Do you feel one should be permitted to go around a barricade and merge in between the floats of a parade? Wouldn't legal action in that case be a violation of someone's 14th amendment rights?

AustinBR said:

If there is a curfew in place and someone intentionally goes out driving around, they are breaking the law. An excuse of "exercising muh rights, curfew be illegal" could yield shiny new bracelets and a free ride to somewhere less pleasant. On the contrary, if you are coming from / going to work or are going somewhere where you have a valid reason, it's more likely that you'll be told okay, well please try to stay off the roads and be safe.

Driving around and protesting a curfew is similar to walking around in a Walmart with an AR - it's stupid and is likely illegal.

Click to expand...

This.

During an emergency, every resource (which includes hard infrastructure like roads) is a precious resource. Romping around just to prove that you can wastes a potentially valuable resource.

I don't envy the police for having to navigate the waters (no pun intended) of an emergency situation. I don't love the idea of a curfew, but I also live in the real world where bad things happen and hard decisions need to be made.

So, during a curfew, I would concern myself with staying put during the curfew hours. If there's a legitimate reason to be out and about, then I'd be as respectful and as pleasant as possible with law enforcement, knowing that most officers are reasonable people and aren't interested in jacking someone up simply "because."

Mike

thperez1972 said:

Do you feel one should be permitted to go around a barricade and merge in between the floats of a parade? Wouldn't legal action in that case be a violation of someone's 14th amendment rights?

Click to expand...

Barricades stop you from entering a specific area. A curfew that was enforceable would prevent you from leaving your property if you are inside the area. If I put a fence up I prevent you from entering my property that’s fine but if your property was in-holding to mine I would not be allowed to bare entry to my property completely I would have to provide you a means of free movement to access your property. My rights end where yours begin.

If you are at a Mardi Gras parade and it boxes you in, you allowed that to happen. Parade routes are published far in advance and you can cross the intermittently. If you live inside a parade route there are periodic opportunities for you to gain access to, or leave your property. Just because the road is closed to vehicle traffic doesn’t mean you can’t cross in between parades.

Bangswitch said:

Barricades stop you from entering a specific area. A curfew that was enforceable would prevent you from leaving your property if you are inside the area. If I put a fence up I prevent you from entering my property that’s fine but if your property was in-holding to mine I would not be allowed to bare entry to my property completely I would have to provide you a means of free movement to access your property. My rights end where yours begin.

If you are at a Mardi Gras parade and it boxes you in, you allowed that to happen. Parade routes are published far in advance and you can cross the intermittently. If you live inside a parade route there are periodic opportunities for you to gain access to, or leave your property. Just because the road is closed to vehicle traffic doesn’t mean you can’t cross in between parades.

Click to expand...

Soooo...if I drove around the barricades and merged in with a parade and the cops took some sort of legal action, would that violate my 14th amendment rights or not? I don't believe you answered that question.

thperez1972 said:

Soooo...if I drove around the barricades and merged in with a parade and the cops took some sort of legal action, would that violate my 14th amendment rights or not? I don't believe you answered that question.

Click to expand...

No it would not, because you could simply have parked in a designated parking space and continued on foot along side the route. Exclusion of a specific area the size of a parade route would not inhibit your ability to enter or leave an area.

Additionally if you drove around a barricade you would be charged with a moving violation. Just like you could for entering a flooded road. That’s not the same thing as saying a city or parish is closed so stay home.

Bangswitch said:

No it would not, because you could simply have parked in a designated parking space and continued on foot along side the route. Exclusion of a specific area the size of a parade route would not inhibit your ability to enter or leave an area.

Click to expand...

Alright...so I'd be ok if I parked and walked in the middle of the street with one of the marching bands?

thperez1972 said:

Alright...so I'd be ok if I parked and walked in the middle of the street with one of the marching bands?

Click to expand...

Well my suggestion was to walk along side the parade route preferably on the outside. But as I contended before an exclusionary area is not the same as closing an entire city, parish (in my case county) or State. Now curfews for minors may be more enforceable however I don’t imagine the penalty being very steep.

Although you have peeked my curiosity, what would an unauthorized pedestrian be charged with for hoping in line and marching with the Zulu Indians?

Bangswitch said:

Well my suggestion was to walk along side the parade route preferably on the outside. But as I contended before an exclusionary area is not the same as closing an entire city, parish (in my case county) or State. Now curfews for minors may be more enforceable however I don’t imagine the penalty being very steep.

Click to expand...

I would contend they are not too different except the curfew is a larger exclusionary area with time restrictions. But I don't believe I will convince you to change your mind and I have not seen anything so far that has caused me to question my opinion.

I'm sure someone trying to jump in with the parade will be given a warning to start. If they continually ignore the warning, there's always the police cordon ordinance.

Sec. 54-442. - Crossing or traversing a police cordon.
It shall be unlawful for any unauthorized person to intentionally cross or traverse a police cordon. For the purposes of this section, a police cordon means any impediment or structure erected or established by a police officer for crowd or traffic control to prevent and/or obstruct the passage of a person at the scene of a crime, an investigation, a demonstration or parade area, including, but not limited to, wooden, rope, cable, wire or metal barricades, the posting of uniformed personnel, or other personnel otherwise identifiable as law enforcement officers.

thperez1972 said:

I would contend they are not too different except the curfew is a larger exclusionary area with time restrictions. But I don't believe I will convince you to change your mind and I have not seen anything so far that has caused me to question my opinion.

I'm sure someone trying to jump in with the parade will be given a warning to start. If they continually ignore the warning, there's always the police cordon ordinance.

Sec. 54-442. - Crossing or traversing a police cordon.
It shall be unlawful for any unauthorized person to intentionally cross or traverse a police cordon. For the purposes of this section, a police cordon means any impediment or structure erected or established by a police officer for crowd or traffic control to prevent and/or obstruct the passage of a person at the scene of a crime, an investigation, a demonstration or parade area, including, but not limited to, wooden, rope, cable, wire or metal barricades, the posting of uniformed personnel, or other personnel otherwise identifiable as law enforcement officers.

Click to expand...

There is a big difference though your exclusionary area would include private property. And as I pointed out earlier it’s against public policy to restrict someone from or to their private property. There is no arguing that it’s backed by over 200 years of precedent in civil court. Additionally you can’t just shut down travel over major highways and interstates for no other reason but to enforce a curfew so in most places you have an unenforceable law. That’s not to say you can’t use the law as a tool. It will greatly reduce traffic because most of us prefer to not act like jackasses and will avoid travel if unnecessary, it also gives you a little more leeway to investigate those out and about. But at the end of the day charging someone for simply exercising their 14th amendment right, would be highly unlikely and wildly in popular.

This is is my expert analysis. I will remind you I got my JD the same place you can get those CCW badges.

Btw what ever happened with the Gretna bridge case from Katrina? If it made it to court I think there would have been some valuable lessons applicable to this discussion.

It may not bolster my position but that’s fine too.

Bangswitch said:

There is a big difference though your exclusionary area would include private property. And as I pointed out earlier it’s against public policy to restrict someone from or to their private property. There is no arguing that it’s backed by over 200 years of precedent in civil court. Additionally you can’t just shut down travel over major highways and interstates for no other reason but to enforce a curfew so in most places you have an unenforceable law. That’s not to say you can’t use the law as a tool. It will greatly reduce traffic because most of us prefer to not act like jackasses and will avoid travel if unnecessary, it also gives you a little more leeway to investigate those out and about. But at the end of the day charging someone for simply exercising their 14th amendment right, would be highly unlikely and wildly in popular.

This is is my expert analysis. I will remind you I got my JD the same place you can get those CCW badges.

Click to expand...

Just so it's understood, here's how a curfew comes about. It starts with the governor declaring a state of emergency. The local chief executive officer of the infected area can now implement the following:
(1) Establishing a curfew and prohibiting and/or controlling pedestrian and vehicular traffic, except essential emergency vehicles and personnel;
(2) Designating specific zones within which the occupancy and use of buildings and the ingress and egress of vehicles and persons shall be prohibited or regulated;
(3) Regulating and closing of places of amusement and assembly;
(4) Prohibiting the sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages;
(5) Prohibiting and controlling the presence of persons on public streets and places;
(6) Subject to the provisions of Subsection H of this Section, regulating and controlling the possession, storage, display, sale, transport and use of firearms, other dangerous weapons and ammunition;
(7) Regulating and controlling the possession, storage, display, sale, transport and use of explosives and flammable materials and liquids, including but not limited to the closing of all wholesale and retail establishments which sell or distribute gasoline and other flammable products;
(8) Regulating and controlling the possession, storage, display, sale, transport and use of sound apparatus, including but not limited to public address systems, bull horns and megaphones.
(9) Prohibiting the sale or offer for sale of goods or services within the designated emergency area for value exceeding the prices ordinarily charged for comparable goods and services in the same market area at, or immediately before, the time of the state of emergency, unless the price of the seller is attributable to fluctuation in the applicable commodity markets, applicable regional or national market trends, or to reasonable expenses and a charge for any attendant business risk in addition to the cost of the goods and services which necessarily are incurred in procuring or selling the goods and services during the state of emergency.

The order must be filled out in triplicate and submitted to the local clerk of court and the secretary of state. As soon as possible, the order must be published in the newspaper or broadcast on tv or the radio. The orders are good for up to 5 days. After 5 days, an extension of the orders can be requested from the governor. If granted, the order must be filled out in triplicate and submitted as before.

Bangswitch said:

Btw what ever happened with the Gretna bridge case from Katrina? If it made it to court I think there would have been some valuable lessons applicable to this discussion.

It may not bolster my position but that’s fine too.

Click to expand...

Crescent City Connection blockade after Hurricane Katrina wasn't illegal, U.S. Justice Department says
The Times-Picayune OCT 1, 2011
https://www.nola.com/news/politics/article_e62c0621-1b07-590e-b1b0-03b24cc061d2.html