On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Scott Stroz wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 2:52 PM, denstar wrote: > >> 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. =] > > > Your comparison still does not make sense. Are you going to wear a 'Scott' > mask at a DWI checkpoint in hopes that the HUMANS there will be fooled? I > think the cameras are a dumb idea, I do not think DWI checkpoints are.
Man, the "prank" bit was a joke. =] The scary bit is the revenue from questionable methods. Hey, it cuts down on speeders, right? Cuts down on accidents? (the stats are actually quite interesting, but lets say they do) Why not just use cameras all over, and have computers looking for people breaking the law, issuing fines and whatnot? >> But in my example, a law has been broken *before* the person is pulled >> over. >> >> A slight, but quite important, difference. IMO. > > I asked you straight up, 'if a driver was exhibiting behavior similar to > that of someone driving drunk, should the police pull them over and > investigate further' and you replied 'No' and then talked about 'innocent > until proven guilty' If that behavior is changing lanes without signaling, running red lights, perhaps messing up the flow of traffic(this is a funny issue too), sure. If the person takes 2 seconds longer to start up when the light turns green... "hey, drunk drivers do that! That's probable cause!" not so much. I think we're pretty close here, really, although, like the torture and wire tapping, I'm more in favor of letting some bad people go free, vs. imprisoning good people. Or however that whole "innocent until" deal goes. Not torturing fools, even if they "deserve it", because, well, shit man. Maybe these things aren't directly related, but I feel there is a pattern, or some such, that connects them. I'll try to stay more on message. >> 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? > > > I honestly do not think we will ever agree on this. I do not view DWI > checkpoints as 'random searches' or a violation of anyone's rights. I know > for a fact the dates, times and locations of DWI checkpoints in NJ are > announced ahead of time and some sites publicize the info even more - > http://snurl.com/dvofb . Kind of takes the 'randomness' out of it in my > mind. Touche! :-) Random, perhaps not, tho I sure did not see a sign a couple miles ahead of the roadblock I was stopped at, reading "sobriety checkpoint ahead". Guess some paper somewhere might have contained that info, and thus, after going into the leaky basement, with the broken light... (whoops... went Mostly Harmless for a second). Anyways, I think the constitution says somewhere something about how lame that is, and it sure seemed lame to me, just some dude trying to get out for his vacation. But if it saves lives, or perhaps is "for the children", eh, who can argue with that, right? >> >> 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. =) > > >> 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! > > > Right, but you seem to want to handcuff (pun intended) the police from > investigating suspicious behavior until there is more 'proof'. How can > there be more proof if they are not allowed to investigate? Kind of a catch > 22. I am sorry, 2 white guys driving a Ferrari in a predominantly black > and/or poor neighborhood are most likely 1) lost or b) up to no good. In > either case, a cop doing some further investigation is a good thing in my > mind. I can see how that would seem to make sense. Might even be "right" most times. It's still wrong tho, according to my Good American handbook. Justice is blind for a reason. Or maybe it was just artistic... artistic.. what's that deal where artists get to make stuff up? Artistic leeway? No... eh. Not important. > What you do not seem to understand is that police work is not easy. > Imagine going to work every day knowing that just about everyone you will > encounter despises you, ridicules you or questions everything you do or > don't do (or any combination of the above). Most cops I know are good people > trying to do a difficult job as best they could. Not sure if you are aware, > but traffic stops are one of the most dangerous situations for cops (It is > often said that traffic stops and domestic disputes are the most dangerous). > Keep that in mind next time a cop pulls you over. As fearful as you might > be of him, he is of you. Totally aware of all those statistics. And that many cops have preconceptions. And that, hey, maybe those preconceptions help keep them alive. Still didn't feel right when they'd just assume all kinds of crap about me, and my friends. >> Since a lot of crime is done by non-whites, wouldn't the fact that >> someone is non-white be "consistent" with criminal behavior? > > > Really, a lot of crime is done by non-whites? That sounds an awful lot like > 'a lot of terrorist acts are committed by Muslims'. A statement that people > in this thread seemed to take offense to. Really? Do you like airplane jokes? ;-) On the realz tho, by the numbers, some "races" have higher per-group rates of crime. Does that mean that the problem lies with these races? It's not poverty, and x,y,z (which also happen to be color blind)? >> 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... =) > > > I do not think it makes us a whole lot safer either, but it does make some > people feel safer. Which just may be enough, most times, to make the > situation safer. So the people in the plane, who feel safe, alter randomness itself, and that dude with the rocket, on the ground lining the plane up in his sights, sorta goes... "hey, that plane looks too safe to shoot at"... maybe he sees a small child, smiling in one of the windows (smiling because his mom feels safe, or whatnot), and can't do it. Heh. I actually quite like that. The power of a smile is an amazing thing. >> My whole argument is that, well... equality is pretty tits. > > > mmmmm......tits :-) -- The same principles which at first view lead to skepticism, pursued to a certain point, bring men back to common sense ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:291891 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
