>> Marnie wrote:
> No, she didn't. I did.
Oops, my mistake. I'm very sorry.
> 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.
I wonder if the minorities, young people, gays, bikers and other frequent
targets of police harrassment have the same opinion you do.
> 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?
If a cop stops me without probable cause then I let him know I'm unhappy about
it. I am not going to kiss his ass while he's violating my civil rights.
> The story said "pornographic pictures." I'm going by what's in there.
> In any case, I said "if." Meaning, well, IF.
I'm sure the cops said they were pornographic pictures. That was one of their
tricks to justify their abusing the guys rights.
> >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.
Confidentiality is indeed guaranteed between a doctor and a patient and also
between a lawyer and a client.
I was speaking about an assumed right to privacy by people who are walking
around in public. The fact is that they have none. This point has been
discussed in other threads. The guy was taking pictures in public. His subjects
had no right to privacy.
> I would also prefer not to live in a place where police are a bigger
> threat than criminals. That is why I live here.
I think there are people in your town who would disagree with you.
Tom Reese
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
