A patrol car notices a traffic violation and calls it in to dispatch. They pursue the vehicle and succeed in pulling it over. The plates are ran and they discover that the registered owner has a history of misdemeanors, most of them drug related. The officers approach the car with apprehension as it is unknown how the driver is going to behave. The officer goes through the routine of asking for driver's liscence and proof of insurance--having neither being a crime. The officers--being properly trained to notice the signs of drug influesence--suspect the person to be high on a drug. They inform the person of the citation for the traffic violation, and ask the person if they may inspect the vehicle for drugs and/or drug paraphenalia. The driver becomes hostile, claiming his rights are being violated, and insinuates a racial bias against him. Because of this behaivor and the possibilty of drug influence the officer decides that his and his partner's well-being and/or life may be in danger. After agreeing on this, the officer informs the driver that any further like behaivor will result in that driver's (applicable) Rights being revoked as stated by whatever law has been enacted. The driver ignors this warning and does not comply with the police's requests. The officers are forced to remove the driver from the car with difficulty. The driver resists vehemontly, forcing the officers to use neccesary force--that force being the night-sticks.

In this future scenerio, the people who put their lives on the line to protect us, are protected from potentially violent crimals by a law that allows them to revoke the (applicable) Rights, when the situation warrants. Once the driver continued to displaty hostile, threatening behaivor that would impede an arrest, he/she waived their rights. Point-blank. Than means that if a cop has to beat a person senseless to protect the community, then let them do their job.
A possibly alternative would have been that the driver, knowing the revocation law, straightened up and allowed the oficers to inspect his vehicle and cooperated with them as they arrested him/her, after reading his/hers Miranda Rights. Cooperation makes it easier for law enforcers, and is a mitagating factor for the offender, lending to a lesser punishment.

The US Military has what are called Restricted Areas. These areas are marked with a placard that is informing people that entrance is only allowed from the installation commander's permission, and that any trespassing will be dealt with up to fatal force. That means that back when I was a aircraft maintainer, and you wandered across onto my flightline--a restricted area--and would not let me and my cohorts apprehend you until the security police arrived, then we had the right to bash in your skull with a breaker bar. If you died from such a wound, oh well, you saw the warning. You made a bad choice. We were just protecting National Security.

But yet the security of the community is blocked by laws that give criminals more rights. Crime pays here and the payoff is big. At that is because the people on the front-lines aren't empowered to handle situations like they could during the years before the Miranda Rights became law. If people suspected of crimes choose to be cooperative, no harm done. It's the uncooperative suspects that need to be taught some civic lessons, like your civil rights, which you hang so dearly on, have been revoked because you choose to be an idiot and threat to the public.
(I'm not trying to project a racist attitude, but I will say it is not my fault that one race is more criminally inclined than another. That is just my observation.)
Police don't beat up people that cooperate with them--at least most of them don't. A Revocation Law would be a strong statement that if you choose to commit crimes, then you best choose to pay for it through the laws that are there for you, or loose your rights to be treated like a respectably human being. I don't condon a revocation of Constitutional rights, but let a cop do what is needed to apprend violent criminals.

We don't need to build more prisons.
We need to foster less criminals.

[This message was edited by Cargile on May 27, 1999.]
 

Of course, the sad fact is that I am being hopelessly naive. It's more likely that we only enjoy "rights" because some higher authority wishes to grant them to us. If so, there's no such thing as an "inalienable human right." We are merely tools of the society in which we exist.

------------------
"Should have changed that stupid lock. Should have thrown away the key. No no, not I, I will survive, right down here on my knees."
--
They Might Be Giants

 

Sadly our world still revolves around brute force and money.

------------------
"I have only one purpose, the destruction of Hitler.....If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourbale reference to the devil in the House of Commons".

-Winston Churchill

------------------
WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE

------------------
"Angels and Ministers of Grace, defend us"
-Hamlet, Act I, Scene IV

[This message was edited by Warped1701 on May 27, 1999.]
 

<flame>
In other words, the Police should be able to do whatever they like to me. If I choose to cooperate, for example, with an unjustified search of my car, they get to search it. If I choose not to cooperate, that's an indication that I'm a criminal, I waived my rights, and they get to search it. This is just plain stupid, it sucks.

I make a decent example here. I have long hair, I look like a hippie, live in a nice neighborhood, and drive a nice car. Police quite obviously follow me regularly, and I have been pulled over for no apparent reason (the reason given was that I appeared to be driving around randomly, which was utter B.S.). This police officer was quite rude to me, and I was rude right back. He had nothing on me, so nothing happened, but by your logic, he should have had the right to search me whether or not I agreed, because I show some of the 'signs' (in his narrow minded book) of being a drug user/dealer (long scruffy hair, cruddy clothes, nice car, driving mysteriously {actually, I missed a turn and went around the block}). Further, if I flat out refused to let him search me, he should be justified in cracking my head with at stick?!?!?!?!?!?! Yeah, sure, that sounds just great to me....

And what's this?:

"(I'm not trying to project a racist attitude, but I will say it is not my fault that one race is more criminally inclined than another. That is just my observation.)"

Sorry, Cargile, but that IS racism, flat out. Has it ever occured to you that some 'races' are more likely to get involved in crime because of the excessive hardships that society (and people like you) put on them? Send your kid to go grow up in the inner city ghetto with no money, gang related crime and pressure all around him, we'll see if he turns into the shiny, militaristic, law abiding, wholesome gem that you are. I suspect that your brain is filled with these insane ideas because of the environment in which you were raised, so you should be able to identify (at least a bit) with people who grow up around crime being criminals. If you look at history on a larger scale, you'll see that 'white' folks have done a heck of a lot more heinous killing than anyone else.
</flame>

 

------------------
http://frankg.dgne.com/
"CORUSCANT...DOES NOT COMPUTE...I mean, uh, you're under arrest." - Anonymous battle droid
 

In reality, already, if you refuse to submit to a breathalyzer test on demand, your license is automatically void. Basically, if you choose not to cooperate, THAT'S what's "just plain stupid."

In fact, and as you admit, Pedro, you DO show "the signs." And as Columbine has shown us, it's become even more important to take signs of trouble seriously. If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably safe to say it's a duck.

I don't care if you live in white-bread suburbia, or the ghetto of the inner city. Somewhere along the line, you CHOOSE to become a criminal or not. You make your bed, you lie in it. And if you don't like it, you should have thought of that beforehand.

As for the race issue... I won't touch that with a 10-meter cattle prod. Yet.

------------------
"... Then you'll see me do some MAJOR dancing on your face!" -- Cosby

 

Pedro
The process to which you were subjected to is called profile typing. This process is under attack by minorities who feel persecuted in the court system.
 

I'll be honest here, I have used drugs in the past, and gotten in trouble with the law for it (not big trouble, but trouble none the less). By this argument, I now am a lower class citizen with less rights that the average American (well, this assumes that the average American doens't use drugs, which is not the case).

Get a clue, the solution to crime doesn't lie in giving the police more leeway in using force on criminals, but in changing the circumstances that led to the crime in the first place.

Another important thing to note, in the example Cargile gives above, it's clearly the police who escalated the situation, not the driver.
 

First o' 2: So, whenever I commit any crime, I gave up my right to be a member of society?! Is this any crime? What if I ran a stop sign? Cargile clearly said 'misdemeanor' in his original post, we're not talking about Manson here. And my point about being followed constantly by police is only validated by what you say. In this case, I'm clearly being mistreated because I chose to wear my hair long and wear flannel. At what point did we decide that this was OK in America?

Finally, by pointing out that 'white people' have commited more than their fare share of genocide etc...over the years was not to say that the race is responsible. The point is that society, not blood, makes criminals.
 

It is true that there are a number of idiot police out there. However, there are even more who are (or at least were, when they started) dedicated to doing their jobs right and helping people. And for this they get shot at, abused, called "pigs" and all sorts of other things, and have to deal with the scum of the earth, people who take PRIDE in being the scum of the earth.

Cut them some slack, you don't know who shot at them this morning, who put them through a high-speed chase, what drugged-up loser tried to bite them, or how many abusive parents they had to deal with.

Re: the driver vs the cops:
The driver committed a traffic violation.
"The driver has a history of misdemeanors, most of them drug related."
"The driver becomes hostile"
"The driver ignores this warning"
"The driver resists vehemently"

Yeah, I see just how the POLICE escalated the situation.

>"I now am a lower class citizen with less rights that the average American (well, this assumes that the average American doens't use drugs, which is not the case)."

Yep, that's exactly right. You quacked. You got caught quacking. In the eyes of the law, you became a duck, and now you're stuck as a duck. Nobody will ever trust you again. They'll always be watching you. And all for just one little instance of stupidity.

Sucks, doesn't it? Just one of the consequences that never occur to people when they decide to do things they shouldn't.

Life isn't fair. Actions have consequences. If you don't like them, don't act.

------------------
"... Then you'll see me do some MAJOR dancing on your face!" -- Cosby

 

If, as the driver did, you behave in a suspicious manner, you give up your right not to be suspected of anything.

It is perfectly legal to ask to search the vehicle of someone who you, as an officer, suspect to be carrying drugs (but you'd better be fairly certain your suspicions will hold up in court). Note that the normal reaction to this question given by an innocent person is either "yes" or "no," and legally it ends there. (A guilty person may say "yes," but we can chalk this up to stupidity.) As of yet, if you politely decline to be searched, most places they can't search you without probably cause or a warrant.

I've been stopped for speeding. Would I let the cops search my car? Sure, as long as they put everything back where they found it. I've got no problem with that. If it helps 'em catch the bad guys, hoo-ah! Why should I care? The only things in my trunk are a spare tire and an old sweater. (of course, once they've found nothing, THEN I might get a little high-and-mighty.)

An innocent person, unless he has an INCREDIBLY thin skin, or isn't too bright, does not go ballistic, or need to. A criminal, realizing he's about to get caught, (and also not being especially bright) probably will.
Again, if something acts like a duck, it's reasonably safe to assume it's a duck.

If you behave in a manner which arouses suspicion, expect closer scrutiny.
Thinking otherwise is akin to expecting not to get burned after you've doused yourself with kerosene and lit a match.

------------------
"... Then you'll see me do some MAJOR dancing on your face!" -- Cosby

[This message was edited by First of Two on May 27, 1999.]
 

I'll give you this, both the police and the driver escalated the situation, neither is wholely responsible. I can tell you this, human nature makes people become hostile when they feel that they are being violated. His refusal to let them search the car does not constitute grounds for searching it. IMO, I should be able to say "Screw you, you can't search my car" in whatever tone of voice I please to whomever I please, which is exactly what I would do if the police pulled me over because of a traffic violation and wanted to search my car because of my appearance. In your list of things the driver does to escalate the situation, you conveniently left out some important points (I was also a bit hasty in saying that they are entirely responsible):

"The driver has a history of misdemeanors, most of them drug related."

Ok, the police have nothing to do with this one.

"The driver becomes hostile"

Yes, after feeling that his rights were being violated...wouldn't you? (This is not to say, of course, that there is no possibility that he's really freaking out because of bad drugs, but Paul's generalizations are quite sweeping).

"The driver ignores this warning"

The warning was wrong in the first place. Telling a police officer to piss of does not constitute grounds to use (or threaten to use) force.

"The driver resists vehemently"

Ok, this is resisting arrest, and they obviously have to subdue him, but this only occured AFTER the situation was out of hand (and both parties are at fault). The traffic violation began the situation, but the escalation was initiated by the police officer's intent to violate of the drivers rights.

The main point I want to emphasize is that Cargile's generalization applies as much to me as it does to some dangerous person hooked on PCP. Simply put, they could pull me over for speeding, take a look at my hair and decide to search me. If I refuse (which is, and should be, my right), Cargile's police have the right to use whatever force necessary to make me comply. This is NOT ok in America, it's the opposite of what the country's all about, period. This is a police state, and it's about 2 steps away from fascism. Anybody remember the whole "innocent until proven guilty thing"?

Yes, if you attempt to oppress me, I will go ballistic. Attack me, I will defend myself. If the police wanted to search my car for no valid reason, I would not allow them to, it's a matter of principal. Again, this just brings us a step closer to fascism. Next they'll be asking to search my house..."you won't mind if you have nothing to hide". Yes, I would.

The real question is, how do you define "behaving in a suspicious manner"? Does refusing a search constitute suspious behaviour in and of itself? Giving the police free reign every time they say something was "suspicious" is extremely dangerous.

[This message was edited by Pedro on May 27, 1999.]
 

Maybe you should remember something. Who is it that goes into the crack houses to clean up your city, every time with the threat that they might be shot and killed? Certainly not you.

Who stops robberies, and violent crimes? The police. Who are the people that end the domestic disturbances that might occur in your own neighborhood? The police.

If these men and women are willing to die to keep you safe, maybe they deserve a little respect. Remember, these are people too. They have families, and children. Yet they go to work, every day, faced with the fact that they may never come home. And they go to a job where they see the worst of human society. Would you do something like that?

------------------
"Angels and Ministers of Grace, defend us"
-Hamlet, Act I, Scene IV
 

Get an attorney. They won't respect your uncooperativeness during a "random" stop, but they'll have to pay attention to an order to cease and desist.

--Baloo

------------------
It's good to stir the coals once in a while, if only to see if there's any fire left.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

 

2/ It sounds suspiciously like 'Assume everyone is guilty until proven innocent' That is a MAJOR shift in people's rights, that a lot of people will not want to give up.

And don't turn this into a drugs thread okay? If someoen wants to do a 'drugs are bad' point, start a new thread. But out of curiousity, you said that the hypothetical driver looked to be under the influence of drugs. What drugs? There is a huge difference between Cannabis and Coke.

So, are there any drivers here who have NEVER gone over the limit?

------------------
'His limbs flail about as if independent from his body!'
-Chandler Bing on Michael Flatley.
 

At what point is the line drawn between being an "ass" and defending your rights against an oppressor? When the police are in my car? My house? Let's move beyond the police, for a second. Tian An Men Square, for instance. Were they needlessly antagonizing legitimate
authority, or bravely standing up for freedom?

Criminals are people who break the law. But just because something is a law does not mean that it is a just one, and THAT is why we say that all people, criminal or otherwise, are entitled to certain rights.

Now, for a humorous interlude...

------------------
"Should have changed that stupid lock. Should have thrown away the key. No no, not I, I will survive, right down here on my knees."
--
They Might Be Giants

 

Um, in Cargile's example, the person never uses any violence against the police, there is a big difference between being hostile and being violent. Adamantly and loudly telling the police that they cannot search you would no doubt be considered by the officers to be hostile behaviour. Again I point out that the person was not given a choice..."let us search your car nicely, or we'll yank you out an search it anyway". It doesn't (well, shouldn't) matter which word or what tone of voice you use, no is no. They have the right to ask, and he has the right to refuse. Anyway, as has been said, this is not neccessarily a perfect example, it's certainly not even close to being all encompasing.

I'd also like to point out that at no point did I say anything about not paying them respect, I do respect them for the ability to do such an insane job and retain their sanity (those that do, anyway, but I've certainly seen my fair share of malicious police). They deserve no more or less respect than I (or anyone else) does. I, for one, cannot respect someone that does not pay respect me as well.

Perhaps you misunderstood my meaning (which I should have made more clear). If the police asked to search me for no reason, I'd simply say "no". I would only become hostile (defensive, call it what you want) after the actual oppression (or threat of opression) began. This is not a matter of disrespect for the officers, but rather one of respect for myself.

Baloo: You're right, defending against dynamite with a lit match is stupid. The point is that the police should not be allowed to shove dynamite in my face, and I should not need an attourney to defend myself against them.

Oh, well, this one's never gonna get resolved, I'm sure. Perhaps I should just chop my hair off, or go ahead and abandon my rights now, so I won't be dissapointed when they are taken from me by overzealous, stressed out "peace officers". Heck, let's just give Cargile's MP's the right to shoot whoever the heck they want, it'll save alot of time and money. :p

If I remember my post correctly, the driver's rights were not violated after he was asked to comply with a search. The driver claimed that his rights were being violated. The cops can by law search under probable cause anyway. The problem is that police are going to use force when they have too. Any many criminals know that by forcing the police to do so gives them a legal edge, and most often results in the case being dropped on a civil rights violation claim. Which means more criminal return to the communities.
Effing wonderful that is.

I have long hair too. So what?

The only reason why I got arrested for drinking and driving was because I was doing 70 in a 50 mph zone. I didn't hate that State Trooper because he pulled me over. He was only doing his job. And I had enough respect to allow him to do his job with no interferance. There all sorts of options available to me: high speed chase, jumping out of the car and running into the woods, spitting in his face, insulting his mother, on and on. Did he search my car? No. Didn't even want to. I also got stopped for an expired inspection sticker. I was cooperative and guess what? No search of my vehicle again! I did nothing to represent myself as being more guilty than what I was citationed for. At no time did I feel like my rights were being violated. And they weren't.

Oh it will become a police state! No it won't. If such a system were to be inacted today, there would be strict guildlines and protocols to be used. This doesn't garrentee that it wouldn't be abused, but having that dashboard camera sure is handy. What would happen is that cases wouldn't get throw out of court on some civil rights violation if there were no civil rights to be violated--they were waived by defendent's behaivor. This means less criminals on the streets, which in turn means less police patroling the communities, because they aren't needed. It's supply and demand. If the supply of criminals is low the demand for cops will be low as well. Lot's of criminal, lots of cops. We already live in a police state. Aren't you tired of it? There are people that live in fear in thier own neighborhoods because of crime and criminals. Why does their Right to Live in Peace and Comfort fall below the criminals' Right to Degrade the Law Enforcers Without Fear of Reprisal? Whose civil rights are being violated then? When a criminal gets off on a technicality, whose civil rights are being violated then? Mine are. Yours are. We have the Right to Live Without Crime.

 

------------------
"We are all a product of the environment we live in.... the rest, good or bad, may be free will." Charles C. Bohnam
 

------------------
"Should have changed that stupid lock. Should have thrown away the key. No no, not I, I will survive, right down here on my knees."
--
They Might Be Giants

 

My honest opinion: The US's system doesn't work. People are not afraid to commit crimes. Some people don't have the morals and values not to commit crimes. The use of fear is oppressive, but it works. In Saudi Arabia, if you steal, you lose a hand. In most countries if you are jailed, your family has to provide for you, or you starve. In most countries you have to prove your innocence. "But Paul, that violates the rights of the criminal!" You're damn skippy. Criminal don't deserve rights. Why? Because they violate my rights when they break into my home. They violate my rights when they take my things. They violate my rights when they hurt my family or friends. Why should my rights be violated and not theirs in return? Why is it possible for me to be sued for injuring an intruder in my house? That is utterly ridiculous. It's infuriating to know that criminals have more rights than noncriminals.
To reduce crime there are two things to do: 1) Teach your children right from wrong, 2) Make criminals suffer. Deglamourize crime. Tell people that if you break the law you will pay severly.

Yes, I broke the law myself. But if I knew that I had the chance to be beaten bloody by the State Trooper that pulled me, then I may--no--I wouldn't have driven drunk. I probably wouldn't have gone out. I would not have endangered the community that has decided that drunk driving is dangerous to it. And the law is lax. I haven't really suffered from it. I expected too. The biggest pain came out of my wallet. And I guess that is why I saw people in court going before the judge with two or three DUI convictions behind them. I can't afford another DUI, and that is enough to deter me from doing it again. But maybe not someone else.

So I see things from both sides, as the LAC and as the criminal. And I say get hard on crime.

Oh and I want to make a point that when I was arrested I did in fact waive my Rights as I was being booked. I waived my Right to Have an Attorney Present. I signed a document that said so. I knew I was guilty. I knew I broke the law willingly. But I was also willing to take responcibilty for my actions. I called my wife and told her where I was, but I did not ask her to bail me out. She took that upon herself for whatever reason she had.
Pedro, you got pulled for bullshit, but the Law is there for you. Instead of getting rude in return, get name and badge number, and call a lawer. If you act decent when being pulled over you have a better chance of beating a rap.
I'm not for revoking all laws. If you feel the police are doing you an injustice, use the law to report it and have it taken care of. You had a bad experience with the law, and I'm willing to bet you did nothing about it. I had a good experience with the law, even though I broke it. I was wrong, they were right.

The main point I want to emphasize is that Cargile's generalization applies as much to me as it does to some dangerous person hooked on PCP. Simply put, they could pull me over for speeding, take a look at my hair and decide to search me. If I refuse (which is, and should be, my right), Cargile's police have the right to use whatever force necessary to make me comply.
In my scenerio the cops were not looking at hair length, or skin color, or vocal accent. I specificaly made it clear that the ploice were trained professionals at determining if someone was under the influecense of drugs. There are tell-tale sign, you know. Plus the driver in my scenerio had a history of offensives. The driver has a lot of strikes against him/her. For a police officer to desire to search your car just because you have long hair is discrimitory, and since it is only one factor, the police in my scenerio would not have the right to revoke you rights and you would not be searched. One reason is far to much power to weld one man. Reread the scenerio and reread it good. Don't just pay attention to the parts that offend you and make comments on it. I've read a lot of posts here that pick out one detail and respond without seeming to understand the whole. I was very specific in my scenerio. And the alternative outcome to that scenerio has not even generated one responce. You have a criminal history (that is what I have infered), and I have a criminal history, but I'm not going to let my criminal histroy dictate to me that I am right to break the law and laws should be passed to protect me from my victims. That is insane.
The cops in my scenerio can not search you just for having long hair. Having long hair and an attitude? Well, maybe you are just a bad seed. Don't blame me for this assumption. Blame the people of your community--the majority--that decree that. The cops don't know you. They know of behaivors that lead to trouble. The cops don't know if you had a bad day. The only thing you should do, regardless of your feeling, is comply with the cops' request. If you are guilty of something and are going to be discovered, then I don't have an ounce of f*cking pity for you. You knew better.

And Jeff: Sorry for the potential of abuse, but what law isn't? If you feel abused by LE, then take them to court. That is your right.

[This message was edited by Cargile on May 28, 1999.]
 

Oh, and Pedro, I hope you understand that it was never my intention to insult you personally with the above posts of mine.

Er, and anybody stupid enough to get TWO DUI's should be exterminated for the good of the species.

I live in Fayette County, Pennsylvania, affectionately known by the surrounding counties as "Fayette-Nam." We have an extremely high "jackass-to-normal" ratio in the population here, including the state's highest DUI and child-abuse statistics. Uniontown, the county seat and largest city, is a major pipeline of drugs into the Mid-Atlantic states and parts north. We have a high population of transients, perpetual welfare cases, the proudly illiterate, single parent homes (usually because of abandonment or abuse by father), and so forth.

People will go so far as to steal small change out of the library's cash drawer if nobody's looking.

Little kids are taught to cheat and lie by their parents in order to get more prizes during the Summer Reading program.

Adults try to come into the Children's computer lab and look up porno get-together swingers sites.

Discipline is nonexistent.

Perhaps this-all is what colors my opinions.

------------------
"... Then you'll see me do some MAJOR dancing on your face!" -- Cosby

 

------------------
'His limbs flail about as if independent from his body!'
-Chandler Bing on Michael Flatley.
 

[This message was edited by Cargile on May 30, 1999.]
 

------------------
'His limbs flail about as if independent from his body!'
-Chandler Bing on Michael Flatley.
 

Although Baloo's covered in hair, being a bear and all, so he's probably trying to draw attention unless I make some frightenly cruel but impecibally timed witicism about him.

------------------
'There's no meat in beer, right?'
-Joey Tribiani
 

Stop Sign...

A local police officer was "sitting" at a stop sign, watched a man roll through the intersection without stopping. The officer pulled the guy over and requested to see the driver's
license and registration.

"But officer, why'd you stop me?" the incredulous fellow asked.

"That's a Stop Sign back there buddy," the officer answered. "You didn't come to a full stop."

"But I DID slow down," replied the driver.

"But you didn't STOP -- it's a stop sign," the officer insisted.

"But I DID slow down," the driver stubbornly argued.

"But it's not a 'slow down' sign ... it's a STOP sign," argued back the officer.

After going back and forth with this several times, the officer became agitated, grabbed the driver by the neck and dragged him out through the open window. He then began to smack him back and forth across the face...

After several solid whacks, the officer politely asked, "So tell me, do you want me to Stop, or do you want me to Slow Down?"

But seriously...

The desire to grant extra power to the police at the expense of our own freedom is yet another symptom of the desire to let others shoulder our responsibility so we can go off and have a good time. The way society operates today, it would be difficult to change things, but here's my take on Cargile's situation above:

The felon above is belligerent with the police officers because he knows that only the police are willing to restrain him if he is caught doing something wrong. If he does not cooperate, right or wrong, he may provoke a reaction from the police which may get him freed without regard to his freedom or innocence. (There are some who struggle simply because they are too stupid to realize when they are outmatched.)

Not long ago, the power of Citizen's Arrest was not just a right, but a responsibility. Only 100 years ago (in England, as well as the U.S., and I presume Europe, as well) it was considered a civic duty to apprehend a criminal if you saw a crime being committed. Calling the police was something you did because they would be of some assistance in subduing the criminal, and they would take the miscreant off your hands once he was subdued. The fact that arresting a criminal intent on escape, who could possibly harm you in the attempt, did not relieve you of your responsibility to bring this person to justice.

Nowadays, the only people who are willing to risk their lives for anything are the police, the fire department, and the military. If you aren't willing to face down the bully, he is free to extort from you whatever he will. Why? Because he knows you will do nothing to stop him.

It's the same with criminals. They do what they do because they know we are divided against them. If they attack one person, no-one is likely to come to that person's aid, and if someone does, they are unlikely to care enough about that particular stranger to risk their own safety for someone else.

--Baloo

PS: That's not my final word on the subject, but it's enough for now.

------------------
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
-- Plato
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

[This message was edited by Baloo on June 02, 1999.]
 

I LIKE that incident-joke. Too bad you can't give a guy an extra ticket just for being an idiot... I could hand those things out all day!

People today not only aren't willing to risk their lives, their not willing to risk their money and livelihood (or society having become as litigous as it has), or even risk inconvenience, or drawing attention to themselves.

Thus, the bad guys are free to run all over us, and they know it, so they do.

I got this lady (using the term very loosely) whose daughter has had 6 library books overdue for two years. She knows it, I've called her house on more than a dozen occasions, and she makes promises, but never brings them back. I even offered to ignore the fine just to get the books back. Nothing. Why? It's not that she can't get there - she has a car and makes it to the post office - right next door, it's not that she can only get there while we're closed - we have a book drop, It's that she doesn't HAVE to. We have no real way to threaten her.
We could call the magistrate on this lady, because she IS violating state law, but that would inconvenience us and cost us money for the magistrate's time.
We won't go into her neighborhood, because.. well, it just isn't the place nice white boys like me go to and come back, at least not unless heavily armed. (plus her address is a Post Office Box.)

OH, for a Library Gestapo, or the authority to act as such... a few dozen broken knees, some busted windows and general intimidation, and I bet return rates would SOAR...

*drool*

What was my point? Oh, yes. The bad guys will do anything they think they can get away with, and without a unified, "this will not be tolerated" front against them, their lifestyle is just that much easier.

------------------
"... Then you'll see me do some MAJOR dancing on your face!" -- Cosby

 

------------------
"Near the door! They leave reality inside!"
 

Voice: Open up! It's the Library Gestapo! We have you surrounded! We are holding your cat as security [SFX: disconsolate meow]. Bring out "Fox in Sox" now and nobody gets hurt!

--Baloo

(RW: Could you possibly do a Gestapo hat sized for the smileys?)

------------------
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
-- Plato
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/
 

Robert, you make some very good points. It ties in real well with the "Blame" topic sans Manson.

Many that have read this post probably believe that I think that what I propose is a good idea. I see this solution as extreme, but if we are not careful legislation like this could slip right by us. Would we stop it? I think today, the majority would raise so much as a fuss, due to Baloo's observation above. No one would care.

I read in the paper that in Miami, or there abouts, that a woman suffering a stab wound to the abdoman knocked on doors for help and died because no one wanted to get involved. This was a mother of children and no one wanted to help her. This pisses be off (not drunk but angry). How people can be so cold is frightening.
Freedom is being responcible. If we choose not to be responcible, we shouldn't be surprised when our freedoms are diminished. And we surely shouldn't bitch about it. I see signs claiming "Neighborhood Watch", but I doubt anyone is doing any watching. We have developed a bad attitude that getting involved inconviences us. We will have to make a statement. We'll have to sign paperwork. We might have to testify in court. I don't have time to be a witness. I can't afford to miss work. I got mouths to feed.
But yet: There is too much drugs on the street. Why won't the cops do something? This city needs more cops. Civic duty? Screw that! I'm not working 12 hours a day to feed a family of five and police my neighborhood too!

Maybe we should.
Before it gets any worse.

------

Having reread the thread, I have more to say.
Police need legislative protection from offenders. Communities need less criminals on the street. Society needs to foster more law abiding citizens. Insuring that that happens is the difficult task ahead of us. Do we look to extreme measures, or get to the root of the problem?
The US Constitution is a piece of paper. The document itself welds no real power. The document was written by people, for people. No higher authority grants anyone rights. We decide, or more accurately the majority of us, which rights apply and to whom and how such rights may be forfeited. This means the Constitution, any Constitution created by the people that choose to be governed by it, is tentative, and subject to change, even drastically, if the society changes. That is Democracy. Imperfect and flawed, as is any other social ideology. Years ago the People thought that the Police should be left to enforce the law as the saw fit. Then the People decided that the Police should have some restrictions and that Offenders should be granted rights to protect them. What will the People decide tommorow?

The Race Card.
I thought this needed some explaining, and I am grateful that it didn't get much attention as I feared it would after I wrote it. When I write, I go back and reread. When I reread my scenerio, it looked as if I were targeting a specific group of our society, even though I made no mention of race. I will not deny that the immediate assumption I made was an african-american, black hair, brown eyes. There isn't any race implied in the scenerio. It could be an elderly Jewish woman with an expensive cocaine habit. But I just felt that it pointed the finger at a common minority, and that isn't intentional on my behalf. Furthermore I believe it is weak to blame the criminal element of one race on the treatment from another. I hold the opinion that rasism is the ugliest, and stupidest flaw of the human race. If anyone believes that 'The Man' is making them commit crimes by not offering enough oppertunities, then they themselves are guilty of promoting rasism against themselves by offering the notion that 'The Man' is superior. That is crap. Such an 'oppressed' person needs to pull their head out. There exist no superiority except the superiority we recognize. I recognize no superior race over me, nor any inferior race under me.

[This message was edited by Cargile on June 05, 1999.]