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 Pedro: [QB] And if I ran a stop sign? Does commiting [b]any[/b] crime mean I give up my rights as a citizen, or does the crime have to meet a certain severity? The statement you made ("I quacked, therefor I'm forever a duck") goes against the very principles that this country is founded on! I'd be willing to bet that well over 50% of Americans have commited some crime or another in the past, so if what you say is true, these people no longer have rights. Whatever....(BTW, the only thing stupid I did was get caught, but that's another argument entirely). 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 [b]makes[/b] people become hostile when they feel that they are being violated. His refusal to let them search the car does [b]not[/b] 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, [b]period[/b]. This is a police state, and it's about 2 steps away from fascism. Anybody remember the whole "innocent until proven guilty thing"? [/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