Not always...but it is in this instance. These are not people who have any known connection with crime. They live in poor neighborhoods and hang out with their friends outside...that seems to be the criteria. Interesting...but irrelevant. That is not what the authorities in Wilmington are doing. There doesn't have to be...but in this case there is. They are adding people to the list who are in impoverished beighborhoods and hang out outdoors. Show me a verified statement otherwise from the Wilmington PD. It depends on how it is CONSTRUCTED. The Wilmington list is being constructed with little reason so the PD will have an easy list of scapegoats. The difference is that for a restraining order the subject has to DO something worthy of restraining them from being near a person. They must stalk, molest, threaten, or otherwise cause apprehension in the person complaining. So while there has been no conviction...there has been a showing of a particularized need for the order.
Now we know why there are loitering laws. Would you hang around one of those street corners? These places sound like recruitment sites for the drug machine. To accuse the Wilmington police of using this method to identify and set-up patsies seems a bit of a reach. Any evidence? The article doesn't really say that they are hanging out with their friends. I think it is equally likely that they are hanging out with known traffickers. Otherwise, they could just get a copy of the high school annual and use those photos, right? From where does your theory come that this list is being prepared to have handy scapegoats? I would say that loitering in neighborhoods that are known to traffic drugs and hanging with those who do is great cause for concern. That's my theory. Your theory cuts some serious slack. I think what happened to my former brothers-in-law is very similar. They were identified by association. They were never arrested to be so-identified. Heck, they may have even snapped their pictures. Who knows? I think it very relevant, but it was 20 years ago. Wish the story were more complete. Much conjecture here.
Perhaps they were hanging around on the sidewalk right by their stoop. In any event it is a place to go to hang out that doesn't cost any money. You see two black kids on a street corner and assume they're dealing drugs. Isn't that a reach? In the least it shows that you have a skewed view of the world. I'm not saying that is their intent...but tell me you can't see it happening when inevitably a high profile crime happens that they can't solve. Any evidence this WON'T happen? The police response to the furor this has caused has included NOTHING indicating the involvement of these individuals with traffickers, known or unknown. Come on...they have a list. A high profile crime is committed and there are no solid leads. The public is in an uproar for the police to make an arrest. Throw in an election year and tell me there isn't a BIG temptation to tag somebody from the list. I never said that was the INTENT...I just suggested that it makes finding a scapegoat a lot more tempting. Nobody, including the police has suggested that ANY of the subjects has been linked to known dealers...so your theory is bogus. You really sound like you think that living in a poor, predominately black neighborhood and congregating in the street makes you a dealer. Very disturbing. Well we agree on that at least.
I really doubt you would get picked up for loitering on your own stoop, don't you? The impression I got from the story is that it is fairly large numbers of kids hanging out-- not pairs. Race is never mentioned-- only poverty. There is scant detail really. There is no evidence of either of our assertions. I'm just not aware of a large pattern of false arrests to satisfy a public demand. Low conviction rates would be an embarassment for the department. The DA would have to want to prosecute. Isn't that how they do it on TV? Are you saying that most drug dealers don't come from inner city's poor neighborhoods? Eyes wide open I say.
Nobody is being picked up. They are being identified as somebody "likely to commit future crime." They aren't suggesting that these persons are doing anything wrong now...just that the police think for whatever reason that they are likely to in the future. Sounds arbitrary to me. It is individuals they have chosen for inclusion. This is not a KMart / Mark Aguirre situation. There aren't a bunch of kids hanging out. They are looking for individuals they deem likely to commit future crimes. I saw plenty of guys dealing drugs in the suburbs where I went to high school. They were generally white rich kids who didn't feel like their fat allowance was enough...so they started their own business. Sure there were poor kids dealing. But you'd be surprised the number of rich kids who do it to get more money than they already have. It's a game to them. Mine were never closed...see my statement on drug dealers above.
When I said "picked up" this is to what I was referring.... "Many of the people whose photos have been taken were stopped briefly for loitering and let go." Agreed that drug dealers come from most socio-economic strata. I have to side with the Wilmington squads who are professional drug investigators. They have reasons for doing what they are doing. I think cops have pretty good street sense. Aren't the individuals being identified through their associations in these neighborhoods?
