On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 5:44 AM, Scott Stroz wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 1:38 AM, denstar wrote: >> >> It ties into the roadblock discussion. > > I don't see how.
It's a lazy, and in my opinion, unconstitutional way to try to catch "bad people" -- it also generates a *lot* of revenue for The State. Those things are especially bad in combination. /me takes a picture of Scott's license plate, tapes it over his own, and revs engine. =] >> 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. > > > You seem to be agreeing with me here. If a person exhibits behavior > consistent with someone who is driving drunk that would be reasonable cause > to pull over the driver and investigate further...which is pretty much what > I have been saying. But in my example, a law has been broken *before* the person is pulled over. A slight, but quite important, difference. IMO. >> >> 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? >> > > That goes along with the 'Has your suitcase been with you since you packed > it" - type questions you used to get asked when you checked baggage at the > airport. Who would say "yes" to that? Police are trained to look for > certain behaviors at these checkpoints. Sorry, again, I see nothing wrong > with them. Either you think randomly stopping people and asking them for their papers is o.k., or you don't. Would randomly searching people's homes be o.k. as well, in your book? Randomly tapping phones is o.k.? "So long as you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear" type of deal? >> 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. > > > A previous statement you made seemed to indicate that innocent until proven > guilty implies that you cannot be questioned/investigated by > the police until you have been proven guilty. Being pulled over by a cop for > a traffic violation is no different than a detective showing up at a murder > suspect's house to question them. Ah, see, "a traffic violation" is a bit different than, say, being white in a predominantly brown neighborhood. I'm railing against pulling people over before they have done anything wrong. Innocent until proven guilty means that the burden of proof is on the law, not the individual. Look it up, it's a wonderful aspect of most enlightened societies. Or at least ours. =) >> >> "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. > > > And I have agreed with you on this (several times) but again, if hey are > exhibiting behavior consistent with those who have committed crime in the > past, then the police have a reasonable cause to investigate further. Do I > think some cops abuse this? Absolutely. But most of them do not. Almost > seems like you have the same attitude towards cops as Gruss does towards > Muslims...interesting. I've had the 80/20 experience-- 80% of the police I've dealt with were dicks. It's a tough job, but that's no excuse. I should note that much of the bad experiences were because the officer had preconceptions. But if you think two white boys driving an expensive car in a "ghetto" is a crime, worthy of pulling them over-- something is terribly wrong! Since a lot of crime is done by non-whites, wouldn't the fact that someone is non-white be "consistent" with criminal behavior? That idea is what I rail against. >> >> >> 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. >> :-) > > > Let me ask you this, do you ever fly? Have you ever crossed from the US into > Canada or Mexico or back in again? Doesn't EVERYONE have to go through the > security checkpoint? Why do you not rage against that machine? If its OK to > check everyone getting on a plane or crossing the border, why would it not > be OK to check every one on the road? Just flying *inside* the US isn't really fun anymore, and I don't feel much safer for all the hoopla. It's like we're giving good, law-abiding passengers anal probes, while all the bad folk need to do is sit at the end of a runway with a bag full of pigeons or some-such. But it makes some types of people feel safer, seeing all that busy-work, and thus... =) My whole argument is that, well... equality is pretty tits. -- That neither our thoughts, nor passions, nor ideas formed by the imagination, exist without the mind, is what every body will allow. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:291850 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
