On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Scott Stroz wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 6:13 PM, denstar wrote: >> >> Do you think a red-light camera prevents more crime than a uniformed >> officer, in a marked car, on the side of the road? > > Umm....no. But I am not really sure what that has to do with the analogy > with drunk drivers.
It ties into the roadblock discussion. >> What was that movie about stopping criminals before they had actually >> committed any crimes? > > But in the scenario I asked about, the person WAS committing a crime, > driving drunk. But in your happy little place, the police can't do anythign > about it unless..well..I don't know when they could in your mind. When the person /breaks the law/. Probable Cause is a hairy deal, and it's gotten way too loose for my tastes. *There has to be a reason to be stopped* Of course, in real life, it's easy enough to just say "he changed lanes without signaling", or any number of things. And if the person is really fucked up, they're going to make a mistake long before they "suddenly" cruise into opposing traffic. >> Yes, what *about* everyone's rights? What about the Constitution? >> You think it's cool to randomly stop people and ask them for their >> papers? > > > No, I am not advocating that people be randomly stopped. However, if they > are exhibintg behavior similar to those who have committed criminal acts, > than I have no issue with the police investigating further. "Not advocating randomly stopping people" -- hold that thought! >> I actually ranted about this, last time I was stopped at one-- *not >> once* was I asked if I'd been drinking. What is the point of these >> stops, again? >> >> > How can police possibly prevent crime if you would have them not >> > question/investigate anyone who was already not found guilty? There have >> > been more than one occasion where I was pulled over because the officer >> > thought I was driving drunk (but I was tired or distracted or some such) >> and >> > I have no issue with that. Why? Because I know they were just looking >> out >> > for the safety of others. >> >> There's really too much to cover here (already "found guilty" -- you >> have some misconceptions about how things work, I feel), but I'll >> repeat what I said to the officer who asked "would you rather your >> wife and child there, be at risk of being hit by a drunk driver?" >> >> To which I answered "as awful as it would be, a horrible, horrible >> thought-- yes, I would rather live in a free country than a safe one." > > > So, I guess you don't think we should have police at all. I mean, if they > cannot seem to prevent crimes nor investigate anyone who has not already > been found guilty, then there really is not much they can do. Again with the "already found guilty" -- the "guilty" part is a key bit to this whole idea, and how people are arrested is a *huge* part of that. "An officer of the law"... what do you think that means? What I'm saying is that police cannot stop people for no reason. It's just how the system works. Or doesn't work. See, it's sorta a check/balance of power, because we know that no system is perfect, but we do what we can to prevent abuse. >> Funny how people who rage against things like Socialism (not saying >> you specifically) are such proponents for some of the worst aspects to >> come out of some of the attempts we've seen so far. Or maybe that's >> something besides socialism... man, those KGB jokes were funny, funny. > > > I do not see anything wrong with drunk driver checkpoints. I think they do > get some drunk drivers off the road and may have saved countless lives. I > will admit that I may not have the most objective view of police and drunk > drivers. I spent almost 20 years in EMS and worked side by side with police > officers on a regular basis. I have several family membes who are polcie > officers and have had numerous frineds over the years who were polic > officers. > I have also seen my share of innocent people injured, or killed by drunk > drivers. I not only lost a close friend to a drunk driver, but I was on the > call and had to take car of the bastard that killed her. That's horrible! I can see why that would affect your feelings. But you have to realize that they *are* feelings. Just because we *feel* that someone is a bad guy, doesn't justify torture, to recall something Rob said a while ago. We have a justice system for a reason. We shun vigilante justice for a reason. These reasons are well documented, and play a major role in how our system came to be / evolves. It sucks that sometimes the guilty go free, but have you really researched the alternatives? We may suck, but we don't suck /that/ bad. Plus, we have the power to change things. And that's sorta what this is about, in a 3rd order type of way... the power of the people. Rights, freedom, equality. I asked you to hold this thought: "I am not advocating that people be randomly stopped" because you then go on to say "I do not see anything wrong with drunk driver checkpoints" Do you not see the conflict between those two ideas? "So long as only the suspicious looking people are asked for their papers", is still a little too close to what went down with the Germans around WWII for my comfort. And again, by obeying the law (having a legitimate, legal reason to pull someone over (one that will hold up in court)), this protects the Officer, and makes it more likely that the "guilty" person will be /found guilty by a jury of peers/, or however that whole deal goes. :-) I get the argument, and I get the emotion, but I'm saying that I would rather be a nation of laws, than a nation of the king (re: that wikipedia link). -- Many things, for aught I know, may exist, whereof neither I nor any other man hath or can have any idea or notion whatsoever. Geor ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:291829 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
