Arrested For... Walking?



 Sociology > Depression > Arrested For... Walking?

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1

1

 
Topic: Sociology > Depression
User: "CyberDroog"
Date: 19 Jan 2007 01:24:58 AM
Object: Arrested For... Walking?
From: The Liberator Online (www.theadvocates.org)
Arrested For... Walking?
In Atlanta, Georgia, police can arrest you for just walking down the
sidewalk. Or hanging out.
It happens mostly in poor black neighborhoods. Which is why some call this
offence "walking while black."
The charge is "DC-6" -- Disorderly Conduct in a Known Drug Area. Most
people think "disorderly conduct" involves, well, acting disorderly.
But that's not the case.
According to the DC-6 ordinance: "It shall be unlawful for any person [to]
.... be in or about any place where gaming or the illegal sale or possession
of alcoholic beverages or narcotics or dangerous drugs is practiced,
allowed or tolerated[.]"
In other words, a person can be arrested simply for being in what police
consider a "known drug area" -- even if he or she is just walking down the
street or chatting with a neighbor.
And what's a "known drug area?" Well, that's another problem. It's
apparently anywhere police say it is, according to a police employee
interviewed by the Atlanta newspaper Creative Loafing. The employee said
there is no official list of "known drug areas." Instead, it's "all up to
the officer's discretion."
"It's one of those catch-all laws that police use when they can't think of
any other charge," says American Civil Liberties Union Legal Director Gerry
Weber.
"It's a street-clearing device."
DC-6 arrests are far from rare. In fact, according to Creative Loafing, it
is the most frequent non-traffic offense cited by Atlanta police. Over
7,500 DC-6 arrests -- about 22 per day -- were made in 2006.
Weber says the ACLU is seeking the right case for a legal challenge. With
22 arrests per day, that shouldn't be hard.
Walking unmolested down the street. Another freedom lost to the Drug War?
(Source: Creative Loafing, "Walking While Black":
http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=181150 )
.

User: "Franz Bestuchev"

Title: Re: Arrested For... Walking? 19 Jan 2007 05:24:59 PM
then CyberDroog wrote, On 1/19/2007 12:24 AM:

From: The Liberator Online (www.theadvocates.org)

Arrested For... Walking?

In Atlanta, Georgia, police can arrest you for just walking down the
sidewalk. Or hanging out.

It happens mostly in poor black neighborhoods. Which is why some call this
offence "walking while black."

The charge is "DC-6" -- Disorderly Conduct in a Known Drug Area. Most
people think "disorderly conduct" involves, well, acting disorderly.

But that's not the case.

According to the DC-6 ordinance: "It shall be unlawful for any person [to]
.... be in or about any place where gaming or the illegal sale or possession
of alcoholic beverages or narcotics or dangerous drugs is practiced,
allowed or tolerated[.]"

In other words, a person can be arrested simply for being in what police
consider a "known drug area" -- even if he or she is just walking down the
street or chatting with a neighbor.

And what's a "known drug area?" Well, that's another problem. It's
apparently anywhere police say it is, according to a police employee
interviewed by the Atlanta newspaper Creative Loafing. The employee said
there is no official list of "known drug areas." Instead, it's "all up to
the officer's discretion."

"It's one of those catch-all laws that police use when they can't think of
any other charge," says American Civil Liberties Union Legal Director Gerry
Weber.
"It's a street-clearing device."

DC-6 arrests are far from rare. In fact, according to Creative Loafing, it
is the most frequent non-traffic offense cited by Atlanta police. Over
7,500 DC-6 arrests -- about 22 per day -- were made in 2006.

Weber says the ACLU is seeking the right case for a legal challenge. With
22 arrests per day, that shouldn't be hard.

Walking unmolested down the street. Another freedom lost to the Drug War?

(Source: Creative Loafing, "Walking While Black":
http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=181150 )

I can only imagine that the fine is so low that people who are already
intimidated by the justice system pay the fee rather than have to go
into court.
They might also have to deal with the officer who wrote the ticket in
court and likely they would not look upon that person kindly if seen again.
.
User: "CyberDroog"

Title: Re: Arrested For... Walking? 20 Jan 2007 03:43:39 AM
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 16:24:59 -0700, Franz Bestuchev
<franz.bestuchev@gmail.com> wrote:

then CyberDroog wrote, On 1/19/2007 12:24 AM:


Walking unmolested down the street. Another freedom lost to the Drug War?

(Source: Creative Loafing, "Walking While Black":
http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=181150 )


I can only imagine that the fine is so low that people who are already
intimidated by the justice system pay the fee rather than have to go
into court.

They might also have to deal with the officer who wrote the ticket in
court and likely they would not look upon that person kindly if seen again.

I can't imagine that an innocent person arrested simply for being outdoors
would ever want to help the police in the future either. It is just
creating more uncooperative people in high-crime areas.
Frankly I have never given much care to the gray area of police arresting
"the usual suspects" over trivial matters. Cops know the repeat offenders
and I don't care at all if repeat offenders are hassled.
But this sounds like virtual marshall law, with a 24/7 curfew, but only
selective enforcement. Many decent black people were already fearful about
leaving their homes because of the criminals. Now they have to fear leaving
their homes because of the cops.
.
User: "Rhiannon"

Title: Re: Arrested For... Walking? 20 Jan 2007 01:36:16 PM
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
news:neo3r2dub9e85e4bk18b65dlb9g1549cbj@news.easynews.com...

But this sounds like virtual marshall law, with a 24/7 curfew, but only
selective enforcement. Many decent black people were already fearful about
leaving their homes because of the criminals. Now they have to fear
leaving
their homes because of the cops.

What shocks me is that you seem surprised. Now they have to fear? No, not
*NOW* Read your history.
All hail democracy and freedom in the US of A. Then go tell the Muslims how
to be free at the end of a gun muzzle, since your country is such a stunning
example for all that is just.
--
Rhi
.
User: "CyberDroog"

Title: Re: Arrested For... Walking? 20 Jan 2007 09:55:27 PM
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 14:36:16 -0500, "Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca>
wrote:


"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
news:neo3r2dub9e85e4bk18b65dlb9g1549cbj@news.easynews.com...

But this sounds like virtual marshall law, with a 24/7 curfew, but only
selective enforcement. Many decent black people were already fearful about
leaving their homes because of the criminals. Now they have to fear
leaving
their homes because of the cops.


What shocks me is that you seem surprised. Now they have to fear? No, not
*NOW* Read your history.

I am speaking of modern times, not the old South or the civil rights
violence in the 60's. I think you are overreacting to reports of black
people being "hassled", most of which is hyperbole if not a flat out
attempt to protect known criminals. Yeah, O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson
were just being hassled because they are black. The black teens suspended
for starting a brawl, and near riot, at a high school football game were
just being hassled because they are black.
Jesse Jackson loves to defend the criminal actions of black people with
cries that they are just being hassled.
I prefer Bill Cosby's take on the matter.

All hail democracy and freedom in the US of A. Then go tell the Muslims how
to be free at the end of a gun muzzle, since your country is such a stunning
example for all that is just.

I can't even address this. You seem to be angry about something that has
nothing to do with what I was talking about. I posted an outrageous law
passed in a single U.S. city. It isn't our nations policy, and I am
confident that the law will be struck down in the courts.
.
User: "Rhiannon"

Title: Re: Arrested For... Walking? 21 Jan 2007 09:42:52 AM
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
news:oeo5r2lt0d51r25lnutlp06o85vpsvtrdl@news.easynews.com...

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 14:36:16 -0500, "Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca>
wrote:


"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
news:neo3r2dub9e85e4bk18b65dlb9g1549cbj@news.easynews.com...

But this sounds like virtual marshall law, with a 24/7 curfew, but only
selective enforcement. Many decent black people were already fearful
about
leaving their homes because of the criminals. Now they have to fear
leaving
their homes because of the cops.


What shocks me is that you seem surprised. Now they have to fear? No,
not
*NOW* Read your history.


I am speaking of modern times

So am I. Read your history meant past to present. Nothing ever really
changes. Freedom has *always* been selective.

, not the old South or the civil rights
violence in the 60's. I think you are overreacting to reports of black
people being "hassled", most of which is hyperbole if not a flat out
attempt to protect known criminals. Yeah, O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson
were just being hassled because they are black. The black teens suspended
for starting a brawl, and near riot, at a high school football game were
just being hassled because they are black.

Jesse Jackson loves to defend the criminal actions of black people with
cries that they are just being hassled.

I prefer Bill Cosby's take on the matter.

All hail democracy and freedom in the US of A. Then go tell the Muslims
how
to be free at the end of a gun muzzle, since your country is such a
stunning
example for all that is just.


I can't even address this. You seem to be angry about something that has
nothing to do with what I was talking about. I posted an outrageous law
passed in a single U.S. city. It isn't our nations policy, and I am
confident that the law will be struck down in the courts.

Angry at hypocrisy maybe. Not your nations policy? My goodness. Naiveté
from you Droog? It's precious.
--
Rhi
.
User: "CyberDroog"

Title: Re: Arrested For... Walking? 22 Jan 2007 12:58:51 AM
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 10:42:52 -0500, "Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
news:oeo5r2lt0d51r25lnutlp06o85vpsvtrdl@news.easynews.com...


I am speaking of modern times


So am I. Read your history meant past to present. Nothing ever really
changes. Freedom has *always* been selective.

Freedom has always been selective in every nation. I seem to recall a
famous Canadian couple who had their quintuplets (or was it septuplets?)
taken from them for no good reason years back. If that wasn't an egregious
violation of civil rights, I don't know what is.
But, as I said, this is one issue in one city. One civil rights issue that
will be addressed by the courts. I didn't intend it to be your platform for
more America bashing.
I like you Rhiannon, even if you do hate America. I just don't see why you
picked on this one issue when I was the one who brought it to your
attention.
Am I concerned about other civil rights issues in the U.S.? Of course I am.
Some more than others, but I consider myself to be somewhat vigilant. But
the post wasn't talking about any other civil rights issue.
.
User: "Rhiannon"

Title: Re: Arrested For... Walking? 23 Jan 2007 03:21:06 AM
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
news:9nn8r2582tlrgc2jle18ae0ejmegpjfj9j@news.easynews.com...

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 10:42:52 -0500, "Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
news:oeo5r2lt0d51r25lnutlp06o85vpsvtrdl@news.easynews.com...


I am speaking of modern times


So am I. Read your history meant past to present. Nothing ever really
changes. Freedom has *always* been selective.


Freedom has always been selective in every nation. I seem to recall a
famous Canadian couple who had their quintuplets (or was it septuplets?)
taken from them for no good reason years back. If that wasn't an egregious
violation of civil rights, I don't know what is.

But, as I said, this is one issue in one city. One civil rights issue that
will be addressed by the courts. I didn't intend it to be your platform

for

more America bashing.

I like you Rhiannon, even if you do hate America. I just don't see why you
picked on this one issue when I was the one who brought it to your
attention.

Am I concerned about other civil rights issues in the U.S.? Of course I

am.

Some more than others, but I consider myself to be somewhat vigilant. But
the post wasn't talking about any other civil rights issue.

I like you too Droog and I don't hate America or Americans, but I do hate
your government. Although so do a lot of Americans at this point. It's
their blatant hypocrisy that sets me off, but you're right, it is another
topic not entirely related to what you were talking about, (although for me
part of it is in a way). I get that you're concerned about the law and it's
why you brought it to our attention, but you also seemed surprised by it all
as if you it was something new and my only contention was that it isn't new.
The violations as described in that article have been going on since
forever. You were the one who said black people now have to fear the
police, I'm saying that black people have *always* had to fear the police,
then and now, history just repeats itself. You have to admit you're a
pretty jaded, self-proclaimed cynic, and it struck me that if *you* could be
surprised by this, then how many others are surprised by it, which in my
mind, translates to people aren't paying attention. That frustrates me.
But it was me and not you and I'm sorry I went off on you like that. I hope
like hell they strike down the law in court, but it's disheartening that in
this day and age, in a country as developed as yours, a law like that should
even exist in the first place, never mind present an opportunity to strike
it down in court.
--
Rhi
.
User: "CyberDroog"

Title: Re: Arrested For... Walking? 23 Jan 2007 10:19:47 AM
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 04:21:06 -0500, "Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

I like you too Droog and I don't hate America or Americans, but I do hate
your government. Although so do a lot of Americans at this point. It's

Americans almost always hate their government also, regardless of the
administration. As gullible as we tend to be at the polls, there is still a
general spirit of rebellion in Americans.

their blatant hypocrisy that sets me off, but you're right, it is another
topic not entirely related to what you were talking about, (although for me
part of it is in a way). I get that you're concerned about the law and it's
why you brought it to our attention, but you also seemed surprised by it all
as if you it was something new and my only contention was that it isn't new.

Well, yes, it *is* new. Although people in poor neighborhoods have been
hassled for decades, it has never been codified this blatantly (with the
exception of actual declarations of marshall law.) Hassled meaning they
could be detained or picked up and questioned for no probable cause, but
not actually charged with anything. Now they can actually charge them with
a crime for doing nothing but being out in public.
It reminds me of the main road I live off of. Highway 100 in Milwaukee. If
you pass by random checkpoints three times within an hour you can be given
a ticket for cruising.
Being me, I have intentionally broken this law on many occasions. But I
have never been pulled over. They just don't pull over white people in
Toyota Corollas. They only pull over black kids, Mexican kids, and white
kids (non-affectionately known as Wiggers) driving souped up muscle cars or
rice-boy jobs.

The violations as described in that article have been going on since
forever. You were the one who said black people now have to fear the
police, I'm saying that black people have *always* had to fear the police,
then and now, history just repeats itself. You have to admit you're a
pretty jaded, self-proclaimed cynic, and it struck me that if *you* could be
surprised by this, then how many others are surprised by it, which in my
mind, translates to people aren't paying attention. That frustrates me.
But it was me and not you and I'm sorry I went off on you like that. I hope
like hell they strike down the law in court, but it's disheartening that in
this day and age, in a country as developed as yours, a law like that should
even exist in the first place, never mind present an opportunity to strike
it down in court.

I don't recall other instances of black people being given citations for
merely being out in public. Loitering in clearly posted areas perhaps, but
that happens to white teenagers also (though more so to blacks since there
tends to be more crime in black areas.) The idea of loitering on public
property being a crime has always bothered me.
But this law effectively allows the police to unilaterally declare any area
to be a non-loitering area without people having any way of knowing if they
are violating the law.
As for black people fearing the police, I think you are giving too much
credence to media reports that are one-sided. There is, after all, a major
problem of decent citizens wanting something done to clean up their
neighborhoods, and cops being powerless to do anything for fear of being
accused of hassling the populace. It isn't an easy situation for the cops
or the citizens.
I don't know if you get the show COPS in Canada, but it reminds me of one
of many incidents where the police chased down and tackled (or tazed) a
drug suspect only to have the neighbors run out and scream about the kid
being hassled and abused.
On one episode, a black cop took the small bag of rocks over to the
neighbors and asked them if they want these kinds of kids in their
neighborhood. That shut them up pretty quick.
I have heard similar stories from Vancouver, a city that is comparable in
crime (including gun crime) with Seattle. I don't see how most of the rest
of Canada could possible understand the dynamics.
.



User: "Gayle"

Title: Re: Arrested For... Walking? 21 Jan 2007 09:56:27 AM
Rhiannon wrote:

I am speaking of modern times

In 1989, Boston police conducted public
strip searches of black men walking in
their neighborhood during one still
well-remembered weekend of racial hysteria:
http://dpsinfo.com/essays/charlie.html
Gayle
.
User: "Rhiannon"

Title: Re: Arrested For... Walking? SPOILERED for violence 21 Jan 2007 01:09:42 PM
"Gayle" <gayleco@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:nqidnVHXCcq3EC7YnZ2dnUVZ_v6tnZ2d@rcn.net...

Rhiannon wrote:

I am speaking of modern times


In 1989, Boston police conducted public strip searches of black men
walking in their neighborhood during one still well-remembered weekend of
racial hysteria:

http://dpsinfo.com/essays/charlie.html

Gayle

I remember that weekend. So tell me Droog is 1989 considered modern times?
Maybe 1981 the year Clarence Brandley was wrongfully accused of rape and
murder or 1990 the year he was released from death row. Or maybe 1991 the
year after that when James McCloskey (Brandley's lawyer) went on to
specialized in the wrongfully accused and had 19, yes NINETEEN, other
wrongfully accused black men on death row released. Or 1999 when Amadou
Bailo Diallo a 23 year old student was shot and killed by four police
officers in a case of mistaken identity (they all look alike don't you
know). The officers *thought* he had a weapon and fired 41 shots, hitting
Diallo 19 times, but there was no weapon on the body. The only thing in his
pocket was a wallet. Or 1997 the year Abner Louima, an innocent bystander
and witness to a scuffle between a group of men and women outside of a
nightclub, was unlawfully arrested, assaulted, tortured, and sodomized with
the handle of a toilet plunger by New York City Police officers. And of
course there is March 3 1991 the night Rodney King was beaten almost to
death by the Los Angeles police. King examined by doctors said they found
nine skull fractures, a shattered eye socket and cheekbone, a broken leg, a
concussion, injuries to both knees and nerve damage that left his face
partially paralyzed. He was in the hospital for two months following the
beating. So, yeah I can see how African Americans only had to fear the
police or the justice system in the old South or the civil rights violence
in the 60's.
--
Rhi
.
User: "%"

Title: Re: Arrested For... Walking? SPOILERED for violence 21 Jan 2007 01:11:16 PM
"Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:ep0dpa$f0g$1@news.datemas.de...


"Gayle" <gayleco@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:nqidnVHXCcq3EC7YnZ2dnUVZ_v6tnZ2d@rcn.net...

Rhiannon wrote:

I am speaking of modern times


In 1989, Boston police conducted public strip searches of black men
walking in their neighborhood during one still well-remembered weekend of
racial hysteria:

http://dpsinfo.com/essays/charlie.html

Gayle


I remember that weekend. So tell me Droog is 1989 considered modern times?
Maybe 1981 the year Clarence Brandley was wrongfully accused of rape and
murder or 1990 the year he was released from death row. Or maybe 1991 the
year after that when James McCloskey (Brandley's lawyer) went on to
specialized in the wrongfully accused and had 19, yes NINETEEN, other
wrongfully accused black men on death row released. Or 1999 when Amadou
Bailo Diallo a 23 year old student was shot and killed by four police
officers in a case of mistaken identity (they all look alike don't you
know). The officers *thought* he had a weapon and fired 41 shots, hitting
Diallo 19 times, but there was no weapon on the body. The only thing in his
pocket was a wallet. Or 1997 the year Abner Louima, an innocent bystander
and witness to a scuffle between a group of men and women outside of a
nightclub, was unlawfully arrested, assaulted, tortured, and sodomized with
the handle of a toilet plunger by New York City Police officers. And of
course there is March 3 1991 the night Rodney King was beaten almost to
death by the Los Angeles police. King examined by doctors said they found
nine skull fractures, a shattered eye socket and cheekbone, a broken leg, a
concussion, injuries to both knees and nerve damage that left his face
partially paralyzed. He was in the hospital for two months following the
beating. So, yeah I can see how African Americans only had to fear the
police or the justice system in the old South or the civil rights violence
in the 60's.

--
Rhi


go sit in a corner a drip ,
and stop taking your rag out on everyone here
.


User: "CyberDroog"

Title: Re: Arrested For... Walking? 22 Jan 2007 01:06:44 AM
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 10:56:27 -0500, Gayle <gayleco@rcn.com> wrote:

Rhiannon wrote:

I am speaking of modern times


In 1989, Boston police conducted public
strip searches of black men walking in
their neighborhood during one still
well-remembered weekend of racial hysteria:

http://dpsinfo.com/essays/charlie.html

The police occasionally over-stepping their bounds has been an ongoing
problem for many years. So? That is what organizations such as the ACLU is
for (or used to be for...)
These problems are not the policy of the entire nation. They are isolated
acts of small groups of cops, chiefs of police, and occasionally city
governments.
Of course in this case I think it was clear that one national policy was
involved: the war on drugs. I don't believe I swept that fact under the
carpet. God knows I have posted many times before that the war on drugs is
one of the greatest internal threats to our liberties, and the country,
that exists.
.


User: ""

Title: Re: Arrested For... Walking? 22 Jan 2007 01:18:46 AM
To some extent I agree and disagree. In my experience
and in those with more, things *have* changed for the
worse bc of the "War on Drugs"
It's a dubious law, as presented, and very likely
discriminatory in enforcement, but the racial angle,
although likely the most feasible avenue to challenge,
is something of a distractions. Consider: Is there any
way to disprove that an area is a "drug traffickig area"?
Especially as it's the PD's department who determines this.
And consider: do we really want to live in a country
where random stops and arrests are tolerated, as long as
they affect all "racial groups" in equal proportion?
.






User: "Thomas Dehn"

Title: Re: Arrested For... Walking? 20 Jan 2007 12:36:12 AM
x-no-archive: yes
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:

According to the DC-6 ordinance: "It shall be unlawful for any person [to]
... be in or about any place where gaming or the illegal sale or possession
of alcoholic beverages or narcotics or dangerous drugs is practiced,
allowed or tolerated[.]"

[...]

And what's a "known drug area?" Well, that's another problem. It's
apparently anywhere police say it is, according to a police employee
interviewed by the Atlanta newspaper Creative Loafing. The employee said
there is no official list of "known drug areas." Instead, it's "all up to
the officer's discretion."

Atlanta, is that some city in North Korea?
Or is it located in 1930s Germany?
Thomas
.
User: "CyberDroog"

Title: Re: Arrested For... Walking? 20 Jan 2007 04:18:41 AM
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 07:36:12 +0100, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:

"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:

According to the DC-6 ordinance: "It shall be unlawful for any person [to]
... be in or about any place where gaming or the illegal sale or possession
of alcoholic beverages or narcotics or dangerous drugs is practiced,
allowed or tolerated[.]"

[...]

And what's a "known drug area?" Well, that's another problem. It's
apparently anywhere police say it is, according to a police employee
interviewed by the Atlanta newspaper Creative Loafing. The employee said
there is no official list of "known drug areas." Instead, it's "all up to
the officer's discretion."


Atlanta, is that some city in North Korea?
Or is it located in 1930s Germany?

I'd prefer that it be either one, instead of the U.S.
But it's true to the tune of the state. Georgia is the state were oral sex,
even between husband and wife, is a felony.
.
User: "Thomas Dehn"

Title: Re: Arrested For... Walking? 20 Jan 2007 04:44:32 AM
x-no-archive: yes
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 07:36:12 +0100, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:

"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:

According to the DC-6 ordinance: "It shall be unlawful for any person [to]
... be in or about any place where gaming or the illegal sale or possession
of alcoholic beverages or narcotics or dangerous drugs is practiced,
allowed or tolerated[.]"

[...]

And what's a "known drug area?" Well, that's another problem. It's
apparently anywhere police say it is, according to a police employee
interviewed by the Atlanta newspaper Creative Loafing. The employee said
there is no official list of "known drug areas." Instead, it's "all up to
the officer's discretion."


Atlanta, is that some city in North Korea?
Or is it located in 1930s Germany?


I'd prefer that it be either one, instead of the U.S.

But it's true to the tune of the state. Georgia is the state were oral sex,
even between husband and wife, is a felony.

Ah, then the defense will be easy. "Your honor, our expert
states that the Bible does not list any drug areas in Atlanta.
Thus, there are no drug areas in Atlanta."
Thomas
.




  Page 1 of 1

1

 


Related Articles
 

NEWER

pg.2749     pg.2106     pg.1612     pg.1232     pg.940     pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER