Title: Louisiana Town to Begin Arresting People for Sagging Pants & Daisy Dukes Source:
TheFreeThoughtProject URL Source:http://thefreethoughtproject.com/lo ... isy-dukes/#e4jGaRQgmE6GsHXD.99 Published:Mar 14, 2015 Author:Jay Syrmopoulos Post Date:2015-03-14 13:38:02 by Hondo68 Keywords:None Views:1469 Comments:7
Opelousas, La. – In a striking example of authoritarian overreach, a Louisiana Police Chief, Donald Thompson asked the city council to enact an ordinance banning sagging pants on men and women.
“It’s something that I think that’s very disrespectful here in this city for the citizens of the city of Opelousas. It’s inappropriate, and it’s time that some city ordinance is put in place to enforce that,” Thompson told KATC.
Thompson claims he is ready to take on any legal challenges to the proposed ordinance, with the Mayor and city legal advisor stating they will look into the legalities of the ordinance, according to Daily World.
“I’m not afraid of the ACLU,” Thompson said. “I’m ready to go to court. It’s disrespectful to the city for this type of attire to be worn in public buildings, stores and whatnot.”
The ACLU takes a very different position on the legality of the ordinance. The Executive Director of the ACLU of Louisiana, Marjorie R. Esman, said sagging is protected under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as “a form of expression.”
“The government must demonstrate a rational basis for its ban — and Opelousas has no legitimate rational basis for regulating the attire of its residents,” Esman wrote.
The racial undertones of the ordinance are clear, as sagging will simply give police another excuse to make contact and interrogate otherwise innocent young black citizens.
Esman went on to say that the ordinance would make people who are unintentionally sagging, targets and would encourage racial profiling.
“It’s not the government’s job to be the fashion police,” said Esman.
Thompson claims that it’s not simply about fashion but about cultivating confidence and respect.
“It’s my responsibility as a citizen that wants to help these young men to be productive citizens,” he said. “It’s just disrespectful. Let’s leave the chief of police out of this. As a citizen, it’s about respect.”
Esman responded that the job of police isn’t to create confidence in young people by forcing them to wear attire that isn’t “disrespectful.”
“There’s much more important issues that the police need to handle,” she said. “I can assure that wearing pants below the waist does not make the value of a person. He’s making that up, and it’s not his place to.”
At the council meeting Tuesday, councilman Tyrone Glover stated that the ordinance should extend to women wearing “Daisy Dukes,” short shorts, popularized by the Dukes of Hazard television show in the 70’s.
This goes to show the ridiculous nature of the ordinance, as “Daisy Dukes” have nothing whatsoever to do with sagging pants! It seems as though this municipality is simply deciding what styles they dislike and willy-nilly outlawing them; Constitution be damned!
An unidentified man at the council meeting stated, “I don’t want to see the police harassing young men because of their clothes,” adding that he saw sagging as “an expression of culture.”
What is truly disrespectful is not a person wearing their pants hanging off their hips, but rather the fact that an agent of the state would attempt to regulate how people wear their clothes.
Will the government next start regulating styles of haircuts we can wear or perhaps what color car we allowed to drive? Perhaps all citizens should be issued orange jumpsuits with white sneakers, that way everyone would be in accordance when we go to the mandatory Two Minutes of Hate rallies each night.
Or, perhaps Thompson should learn some RESPECT for individual liberty and the freedom of expression.
According to KATC, the penalty for this alleged fashion faux pas would include up to a $200 fine and 30 days in jail.
Read the ACLU letter to the Opelousas city council:
"An unidentified man at the council meeting stated, “I don’t want to see the police harassing young men because of their clothes,” adding that he saw sagging as “an expression of culture.”
Well, given that the saggy pants "culture" came about because of the way prison inmates wore their pants, I'd say it's appropriate.
An unidentified man at the council meeting stated, “I don’t want to see the police harassing young men because of their clothes,” adding that he saw sagging as “an expression of culture.”
And he is right. It is representative of the black thug culture,where this style of clothing became popular because it's easy to hide cut-down shotguns in baggy pants.
Same with the "hoodie" fad. Hoodies make it harder to film faces during robberies.
Ahhhh,what a proud culture that is! No wonder some whites with double-digit IQ's want to emulate that culture. If you have a double-digit IQ,you are smart enough to be a leader.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
In a striking example of authoritarian overreach, a Louisiana Police Chief, Donald Thompson asked the city council to enact an ordinance banning sagging pants on men and women.
Correction In a striking example of authoritarian overreach good common sense morality, a Louisiana Police Chief, Donald Thompson asked the city council to enact an ordinance banning sagging pants on men and women.
And he is right. It is representative of the black thug culture,where this style of clothing became popular because it's easy to hide cut-down shotguns in baggy pants.
Maybe possible but not that easy.
Same with the "hoodie" fad. Hoodies make it harder to film faces during robberies.
Aren't some stores in NYC now refusing service to hoodie wearers?
Aren't some stores in NYC now refusing service to hoodie wearers?
I had a local bank try to refuse to accept my house payments a while back unless I took off my hoodie and my baseball cap before coming inside the bank.
And I had been making monthly payments there in person for right at 15 years at that same branch.
I told them to either give me a signed statement they were refusing to accept my payment,or they could kiss my big red ass.
I also told them I was offended that they were identifying me as a criminal because I was wearing a item of clothing sometimes associated with the gangsta criminal culture,and if they wanted to ban young blacks from their bank they need to go ahead and pull up their big boy britches and say so,and not try to punish old people like me because they don't have the balls to say what they think.
I thought some heads were going to explode there for a few minutes. The cretin that was the branch VP got scared and backed off when I asked for a refusal in writing,and told me to use the drive up teller to make the payment. Probably because he suspected (and rightly so) that I would use it as a basis to legally avoid making any more payments. I took the check home with me,and then called the bank headquarters in another state and sent them a email raising hell about this.
I went back in there a few days later wearing the same hoodie and ball cap (it was chilly outside),and heard no more nonsense when I paid the payment. Their sign in the lobby about ball caps and hoodies were gone,too.
WTF goes in a bank where one of the executives is married to a guy I have known for maybe 30 years and only lives about a mile and a half from me,to hand in a check for their house payment,and then rob the bank since they are already there?
The freaking lunatics are clearly in charge of the country.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I went back in there a few days later wearing the same hoodie and ball cap (it was chilly outside),and heard no more nonsense when I paid the payment. Their sign in the lobby about ball caps and hoodies were gone,too.
You win. For now.
You know they'll be plotting to return to this policy before long.
