|
Post by falgar25 on Nov 18, 2006 13:04:18 GMT -4
From another thread: "Though "fishing" by the police can be an inconvenience, it is also a tool to get alot of the crap off the street. How many traffic stops, probably many of them "fishing", result in legitimate arrests for more than traffic violations. "
How far does it go?
Do we accept the police "running tags" in the hope that there will be a problem with one of them that could then justify a stop?
Do we accept the police stopping cars for dim tail lights or driving too close to the center line because it might give them the opportunity to search the car and find something more?
Do we allow the police to search our cars after we get stopped for a dim tail light? After all, if we have nothing to hide then what's the problem?
How about letting them search our houses? Again, if we have nothing to hide, then where's the problem? It might be an inconvenience, but drugs are a big problem in this area and how many crack houses and meth labs would be eliminated if the cops could perform random searches?
How far does it go? How much privacy and freedom are we willing to trade for the possibility of a little more security?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Richter on Nov 18, 2006 19:25:50 GMT -4
THIS IS THE LAW.......To stop a vehicle in the first place the Police Officer must observe a traffic violation, or a criminal violation, or have knowledge that an occupant or the vehicle is suspect of a known crime. If the crime is a felony the Police Officer needs only to have probable cause for the stop. ( Probable cause is for all felonies, and just a few misdemeanors, and means = More than mere suspicion). Once stopped the Police Officer cannot search unless he makes an arrests first, or he sees or smells something illegal in the vehicle, or the operator of the vehicle gives the Police Officer permission to search. When stopped the operator need only give the Police Officer his license, and registration information. It's none of his business where you're going or where you're coming from etc.etc.. Any lawyer will tell you to remain silent for your own protection. Over 120 people on death row have been proven innocent by DNA testing. Kirt Bloodsworth of Cambridge is a prime example. Mr. Bloodsworth spent nine years on death row for a murder he did not commit........This is the United States of America where you have the right to travel freely as long as you are not breaking the law. Every citizen should carry a video camera for his own protection. The average Police Officer is hoping to stop a vehicle, turn the stop into a search, and the search into an arrest. If this is done legally we have no complaint. If not, the the Police Officer becomes the criminal. Talk to the poor, the young, and the minority to see the other side of the coin. When it happens to you the picture will as clear as the water in the Bay used to be. Remember friends, the Constitution was written to protect us from the Government. End of story..........Pete Richter 410-643-0286
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Nov 30, 2006 20:59:44 GMT -4
How far does it go? How much privacy and freedom are we willing to trade for the possibility of a little more security? What's the quote I'm looking for here..... something like, Those who give up liberty for security will have neither? I know I have that wrong, but couldn't you put "privacy and freedom" in there?
|
|
billw
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by billw on Nov 30, 2006 21:57:53 GMT -4
For those of us that where at the trade centers..I will give up what I have to to ensure that something like that never happens again...I have nothing to hide..pull me over whenever you want...run my license plate...search my car....i have nothing to hide...for the one person that they catch may save my children or their children...Stop coming down on our officers...Pat them on the back...I thank all of you guys that stood by me and dug through that rubble with the hope of saving someone...Keep up the good work...
|
|
|
Post by Pete Richter on Dec 1, 2006 6:06:48 GMT -4
"He who gives up liberty for security deserves neither"- Pretty sure it was Thomas Jefferson.
billw......Brave Americans gave their lives for our liberty. If you want to give your freedom away that's fine, but don't try to take mine. Kurt Bloodsworth of Cambridge spent 9 years on death row in the Md. Penitentiary for a murder, and rape of an eleven year old girl, that he did not commit. That's hard time brother. Over 120 other prisoners on death row were released due to DNA testing. No one wants another 911 including us that were not there. What you have in society, is what you have in law enforcement. The good cops, and there are plenty, need to stand up against the bad cops. The cops in Atlanta shot and killed a 91 yr. old woman on a drug raid based on bad information. Then these bad cops tried to get the informant to lie for them, but the informant refuse. In Fla. a brave good cop took on a huge alligator bare handed to save a citizen who was being mauled. Good cops should stand against the bad cops, but most will not........Pete Richter
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Dec 1, 2006 7:19:25 GMT -4
billw.... Be careful in your assumptions about who of us was or was not at the trade centers; you might be surprised.
I will never agree to let the terrorists win. I will insist that their actions not be allowed to chip away at the freedom that has made this country what it is for all these years. If you want to give up your freedom, that's your choice, I choose not too.
I suppose my question still stands, even in light of what you said... How far does it go? You don't mind being stopped and searched, right? How about taken in for questioning? How about being detained? What if there was a missing child in the area, would you be willing to open your house so the police could search for the child? Would you be willing to spend some time in detention just so you could be ruled out as a suspect? After all, if they search enough houses or detain enough people they'll eventually get the right one and save the child. Yes, this is a little far fetched, but the question stands, how far are you/we willing to go?
I believe there are many more good officers than bad. I truly do. However, I'll stop "coming down" on the officers when I stop reading about traffic stops for "suspicion of a stolen sticker."
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Dec 1, 2006 11:59:19 GMT -4
I suppose my question still stands, even in light of what you said... How far does it go? You don't mind being stopped and searched, right? How about taken in for questioning? How about being detained? What if there was a missing child in the area, would you be willing to open your house so the police could search for the child? Would you be willing to spend some time in detention just so you could be ruled out as a suspect? After all, if they search enough houses or detain enough people they'll eventually get the right one and save the child. Yes, this is a little far fetched, but the question stands, how far are you/we willing to go? ; Falgar, How far would you want them to go if it was your child?
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Dec 1, 2006 12:27:20 GMT -4
How far does it go? It's probably gone too far already since they can't "profile". That's a PC word for GOOD POLICE WORK. Most if not all of the terrorist activities for 30+ years has been performed by Muslim men between 18-30 years of age, yet we search the 80 year old woman who's in a wheelchair and can't even stand up on her own.
Do we accept the police "running tags" in the hope that there will be a problem with one of them that could then justify a stop? I'll never accept that. We are INNOCENT until proven guilty, and they need probable cause to stop me, they should need probable cause JUST TO RUN MY PLATES.
Do we accept the police stopping cars for dim tail lights or driving too close to the center line because it might give them the opportunity to search the car and find something more? NO, BUT: we do stop those car BECAUSE they are a safety threat to others, Dim lights are a sign of a problem with that car, that needs to be FIXED.
Do we allow the police to search our cars after we get stopped for a dim tail light? After all, if we have nothing to hide then what's the problem? Nope. Get a warrant, or let me go. I have nothing to hide, and nothing to show you.
How about letting them search our houses? Again, if we have nothing to hide, then where's the problem? It might be an inconvenience, but drugs are a big problem in this area and how many crack houses and meth labs would be eliminated if the cops could perform random searches? No, read the constitution.
How far does it go? See above, and chase the real criminals that hurt people. Minoe speeding and seat belt violations don't fit that catagory
How much privacy and freedom are we willing to trade for the possibility of a little more security? NONE, if you do that, you'll end up with neither, check your history.
Those who fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it. I remember that from school too.
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Dec 1, 2006 12:38:09 GMT -4
I never understood the problem with profiling. The police have profile specialists that develop of profile of the type of person that would commit a particular crime. Them they investigate all the people that fit that profile. So if the profile of a terrorist most likely found at an airport would be a muslim male, 20-35 years of age, we need to check them all. This should be a standard practice, not prohibited. Although, one day you may hear, "Hey Earl, look at those two guys with ski masks entering the 7-11. Should we check them out?" "No Bob, that would be profiling. Lets go run some tags instead!"
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Dec 1, 2006 19:35:30 GMT -4
I think the problem with profiling comes in when you are part of the group being profiled. It's easy to say that "those people" should be pulled aside for extra attention, just so long as "we" aren't inconvenienced. When it's "us" who are affected, the whole profiling thing takes on a different feel.
If you believe that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, or that you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you, or what comes around goes around, then maybe you'll want to think twice about pulling someone aside based only on their age, sex, race, religion, or national origin. While this time it's them, next time it might be you and I bet you would feel a bit differently then.
Profiling can make a lot of sense if done correctly, but what is most frequently proposed just doesn't seem all that correct. All the 9/11 terrorists were males, should we stop all males? No, that's too big a group. How about all males 18-35? Still too large. All arab-looking males 18-35? Popular opinion says yes, but I'm sure that opinion isn't popular among all the law-abiding US citizens of middle eastern background.
I've heard the phrase "It's all relative." I'd agree with that. When you're not part of the group getting the extra, unwanted attention, it's good. When you are part of the group, it's not so good.
frank... you asked how far I would want them to go if it was my child. Fortunately, it never has been and hopefully, it never will be. Today, I would say that my feelings wouldn't change. Today, I would say that I wouldn't want to be the cause of someone's rights being impinged or their freedom being taken away. I would like to believe I would remember these things and act accordingly. However, it's all relative; I won't know how I will act until I'm in the situation. Hopefully, I'll never find out.
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Dec 1, 2006 20:03:14 GMT -4
but I'm sure that opinion isn't popular among all the law-abiding US citizens of middle eastern background. And there's another problem. Why aren't " all the law-abiding US citizens of middle eastern background" speaking out against all this terrorism? I say that inaction by " all the law-abiding US citizens of middle eastern background" speaks volumes for their support and allegiance, or lack their of. Could it be part of a bigger picture? I don't know.
|
|