RW>Now there were probably a couple of dozen of public
  >drunk (illegal) people disturbing the peace (illegal)
  >there but no one was arrested, no one was even
  >questioned.  Was this good law enforcement?
  >Technically it wasn't because a LEO was 'over looking'
  >a crime, but using common sense it was.  Peace was
RW>Now if the town had passed a ZT law they would have HAD
  >to arrest them or face disciplinary action.
RT> You are making Tom's and Charles' point Rich.
No I'm not.
RT> In the situation you were involved, common sense and good
RT> law enforcement was working.  No requirement for ZT.
RT> Now let's think for a moment... what if your situation
RT> happened EVERY night.  And night after night, the walk
RT> through temporarily solved the problem, but then the rowdies
RT> went right back to it when the cops left. 
The -=COPS=- would know that and instead of walking
through they would arrest them.  No need for another
law/regulation/rule just COMMON sense at the STREET
level.
RT> You can bet that a ZT policy will be adopted and the cops
RT> WILL arrest each and every one of the "good guys" that show
Ok lets say that this has happened.  Now J. Q. Citizen
and his wife are sitting in lawnchairs on the sidewalk
in their front yard watching their kids play in the
wading pool.  Mr. C has a beer but Mrs. C doesn't. 
Now the C's neighbor has it in for them for reasons
unknown and knows about the cities new ZT on public
drinking and calls the cops to report a man drinking in
public.  The cops show up and see Mr C on the sidewalk
with beer in hand.  Now because of the ZT policy and
the fact that a sidewalk is considered public (in most
cases) Mr C is handcuffed (SOP for everyone arrested)
put in the back of the car and taken off.
If it wasn't for the ZT policy that FORCES the police
to arrest EVERYONE drinking in public the cops could
have just talked to Mr C and found out the situation.
They would, most likely, have just told him to either
move the chairs off the sidewalk or dump his beer.  But
because of the ZT policy Mr. C is faced with all the
crap of being arrested.  The questions from the
neighbors, the rumors, having to explain it to the
kids, etc.  All because the politicians didn't trust
their police to have enough common sense to do their
jobs.
RT> up with beer in hand. Once the situation is back under
RT> control, ZT will be relaxed. 
Really?  When have you EVER heard of a ZT
law/policy/rule being "relaxed"?
RT> ZT is usually implemented NOT as a blanket policy, but
RT> selectively... either by location or by type of offense. 
And in either it can get to the point where it is out
of control.  Examples for you; DUI checkpoints,
confiscation of private property THOUGHT to be related
to illegal drugs.
RT> Most ZT policies that I've seen in action involved drunk
RT> driving on special occasions.... say New Year's Eve.  That
RT> over the limit, open bottle in the car, minor in possession,
RT> ect., it was a trip to jail, booked and charged.
Then why not do the same for outstanding warrants?
After all if a person is wanted by the police doesn't
he pose some kind of danger to the public?  Wouldn't
that be just as easy as the DUI stop.  You just stop
the cars at random and run their DL.  Good idea or does
it sort of smell like the papers check done in. . .well
let's say less free countries? 
RT> While I agree 100% with your sentiments on school policies,
RT> I think you are taking the ZT policy in law enforcement to
Because if you look at laws and law enforcement over
the past 5, 10, 15 years you can see that things have a
nasty habit of going to extremes.  One way or another.
With such a past record like this I don't want to take
any more common sense out of LE.
RT> the extreme.  It is intended to be a remedy for a special
RT> problem, usually enforced selectively, and it works.
No, good law enforcement works.  A ZT that is "enforced
selectively" is a nasty thing in many ways.  Using your
NYE DUI example, because you have so many extra
officers on the streets then you have fewer on the
streets at some other time.  You are telling the people
that you, the police, have the power to stop and search
you at any time so the people should live in fear of
breaking the law.
If you set these road blocks up in selected areas and
these areas just happen to have a large number of
minorities you face legal problems.  If you don't set
these road blocks up in those areas you could reduced
the effectiveness because the stats show that these
areas have the highest rates of DUI.
Add to that the fact that one of the people stopped may
take the entire idea to court and find a judge that
think he has a case.  Then you wind up spending money
that could be used to hire more police so you could
catch more DUIs through out NYE and the rest of the
year.
One last thing.  I have never seen any stats that show
that these road blocks catch more DUIs then just having
officers patrolling the streets.
                      Remember:  Freedom isn't Free!
--- timEd-B11
---------------