Tom Reese wrote:
Marnie wrote:
No, she didn't. I did.
In the second place, most police officers are reasonable people.
Police officers frequently commit crimes, violate civil rights, fabricate
evidence and assault suspects. I fear the police far more than I do
criminals. I think your assessment of cops is extremely optimistic.
While I admit that indeed *some* police officers are criminals, I still
doubt that represents the majority of them in the area where I live.
As I carry a camera everywhere I go and regularly photograph whatever I
find interesting, obviously I would be nervous about any situation in
which the "authorities" were going to pick on photographers.
Women and men have entirely different experiences at the hands of cops. I
wouldn't expect you to understand the macho bullshit that cops inflict on
us.
I'm married to a man. I showed him my post and asked for his comments.
He agreed with me.
You think maybe they have a different attitude to people who assume
they're doing their job than to people who assume they're all worse than
criminals? Maybe?
Despite all
your paranoid ranting on this thread, that story you cited doesn't
describe such a situation, and such a situation does not exist in San
Antonio, Texas.
I don't think anything he said was paranoid.
So we disagree. I think a lot of what he said was paranoid. Some was
also prejudice, and there's a goodly supply of hyperbole in his postings
in this thread as well.
On the OTHER hand, if there is a pervert going around taking
pornographic pictures of young girls without their consent, and
collecting sexually explicit information about pizza delivery customers,
and carrying weapons in his vehicle, and furthermore this is happening
in the district in which I, my daughter, my cousins and several friends
live, attend public events and order pizza, I'd appreciate it if there
was a way to stop him. At best he's invading people's privacy; at worst,
he's dangerous.
Pornographic pictures? He was taking snapshots of people in public places.
That does not constitute probable cause in my opinion. He didn't harm
anyone.
The story said "pornographic pictures." I'm going by what's in there.
In any case, I said "if." Meaning, well, IF.
It's necessary for laws to strike a balance between allowing a person to
do just what he feels like doing, and protecting the privacy and safety
of other people.
The law does not offer protection of peoples' privacy. There is no such
right guaranteed in any government document.
Pro-choice justices have apparently managed to find one in the
Constitution. Unless you really want to release those worms, you might
want to put the can opener away verrry carefully ...
Aside from what may or may not be in the Constitution, there are other
examples of laws protecting privacy. There's one that the whole medical
profession puts under patients' noses at every turn, for instance. I'm
sure there are others that'll occur to me over the course of the next
few hours, but I want to finish this post now.
I would rather take
responsponsibility for my own safety and live freely than live in a state
where police are a bigger threat than the criminals.
I would also prefer not to live in a place where police are a bigger
threat than criminals. That is why I live here.
