Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
President Cargile Hard on Crime.
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cargile: [QB] Picture this: <blockquote> 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. </blockquote> 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. <small>[This message was edited by Cargile on May 27, 1999.]</small> [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3