The debate on the CP raid is evolving. My original post generated some good discussion on liberties, lifestyles, and law enforcement. Thanks to all for reading and posting.
One justification for this raid that hasn’t been discussed is the nanny state view. The idea that adults need police protection from themselves. A great summary of this view if offered by Duncanville Police Detective Dan Hunt. Here is a quote from DMN-
In a city news release issued Wednesday, police Detective Dan Hunt said the Cherry Pit’s owners are endangering and exploiting patrons.
“Individuals that elect to participate in the swingers’ lifestyle behind closed doors should not be charged to do so, and they should not be exposed to disease, fire hazards, or any other dangerous hazardous environment. They [the owners] are taking advantage of swingers while claiming to be champions for their cause.”
We sent the police into a private house at night to ensure a proper swinging environment? Really? I am curious as to Detective Hunt’s expertise on how to conduct a swinger party. Is there police training on swinger etiquette?
I do appreciate arguments against running a business in a residential area. I wouldn’t want any business next door to my house, whether it be a sexually oriented business or a Starbucks.
However, I still believe the proper venue for code enforcement, nuisance claims etc is civil court. A simple injunction or restraining order could address the city’s concerns and give both parties an equal opportunity to litigate their claims.
Sending the police into a private residence at night is simply too dangerous a measure to protect adults from themselves.