Kansas City sets youth curfew after weekend shooting

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Kansas City sets youth curfew after weekend shooting

KANSAS CITY, Mo (Reuters) - The weekend shooting of three teenagers at a large late-night "flash mob" gathering prompted local authorities to pass an ordinance on Thursday that sets curfews as early as 9 p.m. for people under age 18.

At the urging of Mayor Sly James, the Kansas City Council passed the ordinance 13-0, allowing police to issue citations to parents whose children violate the curfew. Parents can be fined up to $500 per violation.

Three youths aged 13 to 16 were injured by apparently random gunshots at about 11:30 p.m. on Saturday night in an upscale shopping and restaurant district called Country Club Plaza.

James was nearby when the shots rang out and says his bodyguards shoved him down into a flower bed to keep him safe.

http://news.yahoo.com/kansas-city-sets-youth-curfew-weekend-shooting-025521638.html

sheesh, more flash mobs that are violent. i learned the other day that flash mobs actually started off as groups that would go to a spot and start dancing. pity they now are violent or destructive.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

love that nanny state thinking. since they can't stop random drive by's, lets look like we're doing something to make the community safer and impose a curfew on minors.

 

[Phantasmal]

Anchorage has one and has for many years. What would you suggest be done when parents don't take care of their children? You would shoot them, I think a curfew is a better option!

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

love that nanny state thinking. since they can't stop random drive by's, lets look like we're doing something to make the community safer and impose a curfew on minors.

i don't see this as a nanny state issue. this is a security concern and imo, not analogous to drive by shootings. a curfew is a minor intrusion (pun intended) into some perceived right that minors can be out at all times of the evening and is outweighed by the concern of the state (read citizens) to keep the city as safe as possible. it is not very restrictive at all. most minors are in around 9pm anyway.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Anchorage has one and has for many years. What would you suggest be done when parents don't take care of their children? You would shoot them, I think a curfew is a better option!

please don't throw yourself in to poets corner. you're smarter than that.

what i suggest to be done is step up some police patrols, then get rid of juvenile courts for idiots that do drive by's. send them right to the big leagues, since that's what they want to play.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

i don't see this as a nanny state issue. this is a security concern and imo, not analogous to drive by shootings. a curfew is a minor intrusion (pun intended) into some perceived right that minors can be out at all times of the evening and is outweighed by the concern of the state (read citizens) to keep the city as safe as possible. it is not very restrictive at all. most minors are in around 9pm anyway.

minor intrusion. I really loathe that term. governments/courts love to use that term when they rule on something that they KNOW is a violation of a constitutional right, but are so idiot idea minded as to do it anyway in the name of something called government interest and hope that the stupid public finds it palatable. case in point, michigan dept of state police v. sitz

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

minor intrusion. I really loathe that term. governments/courts love to use that term when they rule on something that they KNOW is a violation of a constitutional right, but are so idiot idea minded as to do it anyway in the name of something called government interest and hope that the stupid public finds it palatable. case in point, michigan dept of state police v. sitz

really....please point out to me where in the constitution that minors have a right to be out after 9pm on public streets or property.

the term minor intrusion is very important. because there must be a balance. thus, we, as a nation, must weigh harms. for example, yelling fire in a crowded theater, this intrusion into our free speech rights is minor and permissible. why? because on balance, your right to free speech is outweighed by overall societal concerns. the constitution was not written in stone, nor is it to be a stone around our neck. it is the foundation of this country, and this country is made up of you and i.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

really....please point out to me where in the constitution that minors have a right to be out after 9pm on public streets or property.

point out to me in the constitution where any government has the authority to prevent minors from being on the streets after 9

the term minor intrusion is very important. because there must be a balance. thus, we, as a nation, must weigh harms. for example, yelling fire in a crowded theater, this intrusion into our free speech rights is minor and permissible. why? because on balance, your right to free speech is outweighed by overall societal concerns. the constitution was not written in stone, nor is it to be a stone around our neck. it is the foundation of this country, and this country is made up of you and i.

that fucking decision is the second most abominable one in the history of this nation. it allows people like you the supposed ability to put limits and restrictions on rights where the constitution says 'shall make no law' and 'shall not be infringed', among others. Places in the constitution where the founders absolutely and unequivocably denied the gov any power whatsoever, and statists run to this decision like flies to honey all in the name of 'balance'.

the constitution was written to LIMIT the governmental powers, not tell us that they could weigh our rights with societal interest.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

E=SmarterThanYou;855643]point out to me in the constitution where any government has the authority to prevent minors from being on the streets after 9

amendment 10

that fucking decision is the second most abominable one in the history of this nation. it allows people like you the supposed ability to put limits and restrictions on rights where the constitution says 'shall

make no law' and 'shall not be infringed', among others. Places in the constitution where the founders absolutely and unequivocably denied the gov any power whatsoever, and statists run to this decision like flies to honey all in the name of 'balance'.

the constitution was written to LIMIT the governmental powers, not tell us that they could weigh our rights with societal interest.

do you support the "right" of a fellow citizen to yell fire, when there is none, in a crowded theater? do you think that is what the founders had in mind when creating the constitution? how about speech that threatens the life of another? do you think the founders believed that speech to be protected by the first amendment?

the constitution was written to limit the government so we would not be a monarchy or any other type of government of tyranny. the constitution is all about weighing rights, that is why it has been amended over time. the judicial branch, as set up, by the constitution allows an entity of our government to interpret the constitution. if not our courts or scotus at least, then who...you....me....obama?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

amendment 10

Any state constitution that gives the state the power to limit the speech of a free individual, well the sad idiots that live there deserve it then, however, amendment 10 does not give carte blanche to the states to restrict free speech just because the 10th says what it does.

do you support the "right" of a fellow citizen to yell fire, when there is none, in a crowded theater?

I support the right of a fellow citizen to yell fire in a crowded theater, ESPECIALLY if there is one. If there ISN'T a fire, then said citizen gets to be responsible for any injuries and damages the idiot causes.

do you think that is what the founders had in mind when creating the constitution? how about speech that threatens the life of another? do you think the founders believed that speech to be protected by the first amendment?

the founders intended to PREVENT the feds from interfering with speech, period. The founders intended the states to deal with that, or the people respectively.

the constitution was written to limit the government so we would not be a monarchy or any other type of government of tyranny.

No, that is not why the constitution was written. perhaps you should read up on federalism.

the constitution is all about weighing rights, that is why it has been amended over time.

no, the constitution defines powers to the federal government. nothing more, nothing less. The amendment process is the ONLY way to change the meaning or parameters of said document.

the judicial branch, as set up, by the constitution allows an entity of our government to interpret the constitution.

absolutely wrong. where did you learn that craptastic piece of history?

if not our courts or scotus at least, then who...you....me....obama?

we the people wrote it, right? so who do you think gets to interpret it? I can point out a very recent case that would certainly make my case for US interpreting the constitution.