Police Intrusion: Does the End Result Justify the Means??

[Run To State]

So, you guys are for repelling the laws in this country against the speed limit, the ability to go into a crowded place and yell fire, to make threats against the President's life?

 

That is giving up a little freedom and according to some dead guy from 200 years ago, we allow speed limits and we don't deserve freedom or security.

 

Life is NOT black and white buy shades of grey.

You're talking about laws that have been on the books forever. I'm talking about an invasion of my privacy.

[mcpapa]

to paraphrase Ben Franklin

 

Anyone who would give up a little freedom in exchange for a little security deserves neither.

 

Which is why many were not happy about the portions of The Patriot Act that permitted wiretapping without court orders...

[rockmom]

Wait...did RTS and Acemona just agree? :scared:

 

 

 

Just as wacky....it appears that LBBC and I are agreeing. :lol: :eek:

[True blue (and gold)]

Which is why many were not happy about the portions of The Patriot Act that permitted wiretapping without court orders...

 

:thumb:

[outlawcoach]

So, you guys are for repelling the laws in this country against the speed limit, the ability to go into a crowded place and yell fire, to make threats against the President's life?

 

That is giving up a little freedom and according to some dead guy from 200 years ago, we allow speed limits and we don't deserve freedom or security.

 

Life is NOT black and white buy shades of grey.

 

Doing the things you mentioned violate other people's freedoms and thats where our freedom ends. I am free to swing my fist all I want but that right stops at the end of someone's nose. The Constitution is a great document because it is "living." It gives the ability to change it when a change is needed.

[outlawcoach]

And you seem to be holding on the position that the government has no rights to do anything.

 

Why should they be allowed to outlaw drugs?

Why should they be allowed to post a speed limit?

Why should they be allowed declare public property off limits?

Why should a government be allowed to have a military draft?

 

There are times that government HAS to have the right to set guidelines and laws and procedures that IS best for this country.

 

The argument is not whether it should or not, but that seems to be what you are saying, but rather whether this procedure fits the definition of what is right for society.

 

The gov has the right to do things for the good of the people, not an individual person. We are free to smoke, eat unhealthy food, not exercise enough, etc. When I do these things, I am not harming anyone but myself. If I choose to drink alcohol while knowing that it is bad for me, so be it. But, if I choose to drink alcohol and get behind the wheel of a car, then I am violating other people's rights.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Doing the things you mentioned violate other people's freedoms and thats where our freedom ends. I am free to swing my fist all I want but that right stops at the end of someone's nose. The Constitution is a great document because it is "living." It gives the ability to change it when a change is needed.

 

Some will take great offense at you saying it is a living document and the right for it to change.

 

Drunk driving has violated other people's freedom as they are now dead as a result of a drunk driver.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Just as wacky....it appears that LBBC and I are agreeing. :lol: :eek:

 

That is what is great about BGP.

 

Usually I found myself agreeing with RTS.

But yesterday I agreed with acemonia TWICE.

And today with RM.:thumb::lol:

 

Now, if I start agreeing with peprock, I might get worried.:lol::lol::lol::lol:

[AcesFull]

So you're fine with the police announcing that they will be coming down your street and searching your house for anything that could hurt others in the public? Drugs? Guns? Child pornography? As long as they put in the CJ?

 

I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying. If you're saying the driver has the choice to not be at the checkpoint, that's a weak argument.

 

I must admit that I'm fascinated by the logic that since its on a public road vs in one's private home that there is somehow a difference in the fact that either a)you've forfeited the right to not have to prove your innocence and b)the Constitution only applies to your rights while you're tucked into bed.

 

We're talking about the right of the govt to force you to prove your innocence when you've not given them any indication of being guilty of anything. Why does it matter WHERE that happens?

 

This mentality proves my point that many feel that the end justifies the means. No one is saying someone has the right to drive drunk. However, just like with any felony, its not my job nor my obligation under the Constitution to prove that I'm not guilty. I have to give the govt some sort of reason, and not very much, to SUSPECT that I may be guilty.

 

I think the fallacy of your position is that since it was announced (albeit only to those who read the paper which is not a lot of people) that we , as citizens, should forgo our rights. That is incomprehensible to me. To use a cliche, that's a slippery slope. You are now saying to the govt, I will give up my rights at any time as long as the intrusion is under the guise of "its for the good of the public."

 

That's not how we were set up as a country.

:thumb: Well said, Clyde. It is scary to see just how quickly many of our fellow Americans are willing to give away our constitutional rights using the logic that they have "nothing to hide."

[AcesFull]

For Fourth Amendment purposes, the law does not distinguish between the "right" of privacy in a home or car. Some of the "means" are different, however.

Is there not also a Fifth Amendment issue here as well? Are you not being compelled to provide evidence that might incriminate you without as much as probably cause?

[Clyde]

And you seem to be holding on the position that the government has no rights to do anything.

 

Why should they be allowed to outlaw drugs?

Why should they be allowed to post a speed limit?

Why should they be allowed declare public property off limits?

Why should a government be allowed to have a military draft?

 

There are times that government HAS to have the right to set guidelines and laws and procedures that IS best for this country.

 

The argument is not whether it should or not, but that seems to be what you are saying, but rather whether this procedure fits the definition of what is right for society.

 

You are not paying attention to the point of this debate. I'm arguing that YOU are giving up your Constitutional rights. Period. I never said the govt can't make laws. I said CLEARLY that the Constitution is the Constitution. Your argument is that the Constitution is fine UNLESS it deals with drunk drivers.

 

THATS THE ARGUMENT AT HAND.

[Clyde]

You are making a HUGE, HUGE jump.

 

No one is saying they are going to do that. They are simply saying that if you are out in public, than it is a different matter. You are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole to benefit your argument and it won't fit.

 

Good Lord. Seriously. Public has ZERO to do with this debate. How can I make it any clearer?

[Hatz]

I find it funny that no one is still taking up the question about this intrusion and any intrusion of the Patriot Act. Are these two different issues to you, and if so why? I mean if the ends don't justify the means in the blood tests in Columbus, how do they justify the means in the activities of Homeland Security and some parts of the Patriot Act?

[Clyde]

I find it funny that no one is still taking up the question about this intrusion and any intrusion of the Patriot Act. Are these two different issues to you, and if so why? I mean if the ends don't justify the means in the blood tests in Columbus, how do they justify the means in the activities of Homeland Security and some parts of the Patriot Act?

 

I don't justify them.

[cch5432]

I have read so many dystopian novels that I am against any type of government intrusion. Yes, Hatz, the Patriot Act bothers me.