Nice quote that has been repeated over and over and IMO overly simplistic view of a serious issue. We give up freedoms every day without batting an eye in the guise of public safety. Whether it be limits on drinking and driving, being able to carry a firearm for protection any place we want or being forced to wear a helmet on a motorcycle.

 

It is simplistic. But it is a good warning for the times we live in.

 

As noted, for 'imminent' situations authorities have lots of leeway already. The question of what is 'imminent' seems to be heart of the current drone discussions.

 

The two things that should be the foundation of actions in the grey areas are: a) check and balance (i.e. warrant that has been reviewed by a judge before executing a search of ones residence or other private domain); b) due process (i.e. hold a trial, attempt to detain, etc. before dropping a drone bomb on a US citizen).

 

If those 2 things are done - it would seem that almost any action would be lawful or constitutional. But in lack of specific warrants or lack of any due process raiding peoples houses or dropping missiles on them seems illegal, unconstitutional and possible immoral.

 

Remember that the requirement for warrants came from the British raiding peoples house enforcing the stamp act. An act that required the kings stamp be on every single piece of paper in a house. Soldiers could create their own warrant without review of judge or higher function and raid your house at whim. Given the extreme likelihood they would find a piece of paper without the kings stamp they then could haul you off for tax evasion. Good thing they did not have drones back then!

Here's the way I look at it. If an officer or government agent decides to ignore someone's civil liberties to save a life or multiple lives I'm fine with that. However, if they are wrong about the person whose civil liberties are being violated, (or even if they are right) they should suffer whatever consequences come with their actions. If they are wrong about the person they should be sued or prosecuted for their actions. If they were right but used illegal means to obtain evidence or stop the crime then that evidence should not be used to prosecute the criminal. If the officer knows that what they are doing is right and will save lives I seriously doubt most would worry about whether or not what they are doing will result in a conviction being tossed out--nor should they.

Possibly wasn't in the question.

 

So your on the side of erring on the side of personal liberty than on the side of someones life?

 

Yes

To me its pretty simple. Politicians and the government scare people into given up their rights through fear. Freedom and siding with liberty in the end is always the best. I also agree that's cops have to make split second decisions and I don't envy that . But in the end after the situation is reviewed if cops or law enforcement are found to violate rights they should be held accountable. Like I mentioned in another thread our system where an individual is innocent u til proven guilty puts the burden on the state to prove guilt. I'm not for restricting any more freedoms to make it easier on the government to prosecute its people .

To me its pretty simple. Politicians and the government scare people into given up their rights through fear. Freedom and siding with liberty in the end is always the best. I also agree that's cops have to make split second decisions and I don't envy that . But in the end after the situation is reviewed if cops or law enforcement are found to violate rights they should be held accountable. Like I mentioned in another thread our system where an individual is innocent u til proven guilty puts the burden on the state to prove guilt. I'm not for restricting any more freedoms to make it easier on the government to prosecute its people .

I'm not talking about changes to the law to take away any rights or privileges...just asking is one persons individual liberty more important than someone else's life.

 

Is it OK to violate someone else's rights if it will save a life with no repercussions on those violating that persons right. Or is that persons life the price of Liberty.

Here's the way I look at it. If an officer or government agent decides to ignore someone's civil liberties to save a life or multiple lives I'm fine with that. However, if they are wrong about the person whose civil liberties are being violated, (or even if they are right) they should suffer whatever consequences come with their actions. If they are wrong about the person they should be sued or prosecuted for their actions. If they were right but used illegal means to obtain evidence or stop the crime then that evidence should not be used to prosecute the criminal. If the officer knows that what they are doing is right and will save lives I seriously doubt most would worry about whether or not what they are doing will result in a conviction being tossed out--nor should they.

Rush in and save a life but if you violate the perpetrators rights we'll prosecute you and let them go...is that what your saying?

I'm not talking about changes to the law to take away any rights or privileges...just asking is one persons individual liberty more important than someone else's life.

 

Is it OK to violate someone else's rights if it will save a life with no repercussions on those violating that persons right. Or is that persons life the price of Liberty.

 

 

Is it right is a loose question . Like someone said earlier this isn't a black or white world. But if we are asking in a generic sense then no its not. I'm not saying law enforcement shouldn't make a judgement in a crunch situation. But when they make that judgement call their could be reprucussions. What you are asking is a question to rare situations. The problem most people have with the infringement on civil liberties are where there is no imminent threat. Only an abuse of power. .

Is it right is a loose question . Like someone said earlier this isn't a black or white world. But if we are asking in a generic sense then no its not. I'm not saying law enforcement shouldn't make a judgement in a crunch situation. But when they make that judgement call their could be reprucussions. What you are asking is a question to rare situations. The problem most people have with the infringement on civil liberties are where there is no imminent threat. Only an abuse of power. .

Why does this keep coming back to law enforcement issues. There are a lot of other ways freedoms can be taken away and the really big ones aren't carried out on a traffic stop.

Why does this keep coming back to law enforcement issues. There are a lot of other ways freedoms can be taken away and the really big ones aren't carried out on a traffic stop.

 

I can't speak for LIPTON BASH directly, but I think he means law enforcement in a broad sense, as in Patriot Act/NSA being encompassed in it in a macro level, not a Sheriff's Deputy prolonging a traffic stop by 5 minutes.

 

I say this based on, "Politicians and the government scare people into given up their rights through fear."

 

 

For me, the Patriot Act/NSA kind of stuff was more what I thought of when I read Post #34 and thought of "scare tactics".

Rush in and save a life but if you violate the perpetrators rights we'll prosecute you and let them go...is that what your saying?

 

Basically. If what someone has to do to save a life violates another person's rights then they have to suffer the consequences of their actions. In most cases I wouldn't think they would be prosecuted but if it results in a conviction being lost then so be it.

Basically. If what someone has to do to save a life violates another person's rights then they have to suffer the consequences of their actions. In most cases I wouldn't think they would be prosecuted but if it results in a conviction being lost then so be it.

 

Let's also be realistic and say that if someone escapes a conviction on a technicality, they might be a marked man/woman and better start flying right or just go ahead and get ready to face the music.

Let's also be realistic and say that if someone escapes a conviction on a technicality, they might be a marked man/woman and better start flying right or just go ahead and get ready to face the music.

 

I guess Bill Ayers and his wife are the exception to this rule...

I guess Bill Ayers and his wife are the exception to this rule...

 

:thumb:

 

The exceptions prove the rule.

 

Was just trying to say that sometimes beating a charge could give someone like a DA or agent a hard-on for you if it's something bad enough. Think of a guy like George Zimmerman, regardless of how you feel about his guilt or innocence. He's probably a big fish to the next person to pop him for something.