[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marnie wrote:
No, she didn't. I did.
Oops, my mistake. I'm very sorry.
Should have seen it as a sign of how closely you read the remarks.
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.
Where is your evidence that minorities, young people, gays and bikers
are frequent targets of police harrassment in my part of the country?
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.
Apparently the fact that the cops said so is enough for you to believe
it is not true.
I said,
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.
Do you see the "if"?
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.
You didn't say "assumed right to privacy by people who are walking
around in public" and I responded to what you did say.
By the way, the law says if you have sex with a person who does not
consent, that's a violation. Many people do not have a problem with the
law saying that. I have no problem agreeing with the similar principle
that if you take pornographic photographs of a person without that
person's consent, that too is a violation. And THAT is what the law that
you all are complaining about, says.
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.
I'm sure the criminals do.
