That’s obviously unconstitutional.

This security zone thing is kind of in a gray area though. Probably could argue freedom of assembly.

All I was saying is that maybe the people who actually live in these horrible, crime-ridden neighborhoods might appreciate the extra security.

It’s kind of like people who live in gated communities having the show their pass to the security guard to get into their neighborhood.

Is “I want to go play Call of Duty 4 split screen with my pal” acceptable?

Even if I buy into the idea that this kind of total lockdown is the only way possible to solve the crime/violence problem, the rules themselves are unacceptably vague. The Chief of Police has the sole authority necessary to establish a “Neighborhood Safety Zone”, based on nebulous “evidence” requirements.

Don’t really have a problem with the curfew on minors in Columbus, tho. It’s well established that minors do not have the full rights of citizenship that adults have. And it’s not as if there aren’t reasonable exceptions; nor are the kids subject to being hauled off to jail.

The police are there to protect and serve. Obviously, I support that. But security has to be balanced with liberty, and this “Neighborhood Safety Zone” business set off a little red flag in my head. They already tried warrantless door-to-door searches, for crissakes.

But I get your point. It’s probably not constitutional and I certainly wouldn’t want this kind of police action happening in my neighborhood.

Then again, Clintonville isn’t exactly plauged by “out-of-control violence” (neither is Deleware).

If it was, I can imagine I might feel differently.

If I was afraid to leave my house or let my children play outside I might actually welcome the police on to my block.