OT: Explosions at the Boston Marathon

[K-9]

The 4th amendment became a memory about the time Nancy Reagan started spreading the "Just Say No" campaign.

 

Our liberties have been in a tail spin since the War on Drugs started. We as a society turned a blind eye to civil liberty to feel safer as the war on drugs raged. We cheered as our gov't stole and sold property in the name of drugs. we cheered as our gov't used the proceeds of those sales to equip themselves as a domestic army, complete with military grade surveillance and communications equipment. We cheered as we were being forced to stop at roadside checkpoints and explain where we were coming from and what we were doing simply because we were on the road at 2am on a Saturday. We cheered when our government told us all that we'd be eavesdropped on and forced to go through body scanners and full body pat downs post-9/11. And now we are cheering when those military equipped "officers of the peace" force already spooked citizens from their homes at gunpoint, frisk them multiple times, AND NOT ALLOW THEM BACK INTO THEIR FREAKING HOMES when the search is ended.

 

Just who the ###### are we safer from anyway?

 

Ourselves?

[Taro T]

If the public didn't want this stuff we wouldn't have it. Blame your fellow Americans. Checkpoints, cameras, body scanners, all things that these agencies really don't want to spend money on. But they do it because we expect them to be omniscient.

Not necessarily true. A lot of this stuff comes about because some vocal minority wants something and it looks harmless enough to the majority that don't know the details. The politician is always going to go with where the loudest bark is coming from, especially if it gives him a reason to spend more money.

 

(I removed the rest of this post that was sounding far too much like what Dwight might have written about Ryan Miller's eyes. ;))

 

http://en.wikipedia....of_the_majority

 

 

 

The ACLU tends to be inconsistent in their protection of civil lliberties IMO. I don't trust them to be a bellweather of what should/should not be something to get riled up about.

 

True. But this one should be a homerun for them.

[darksabre]

 

Not necessarily true. A lot of this stuff comes about because some vocal minority wants something and it looks harmless enough to the majority that don't know the details. The politician is always going to go with where the loudest bark is coming from, especially if it gives him a reason to spend more money.

 

(I removed the rest of this post that was sounding far too much like what Dwight might have written about Ryan Miller's eyes. ;))

 

So if the majority is largely silent then is the theory of majority tyranny sort of counterintuitive? Tyranny through indifference?

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

Tyranny through indifference?

 

Or conformity?

 

Look at Taro's joke......

[Taro T]

So if the majority is largely silent then is the theory of majority tyranny sort of counterintuitive? Tyranny through indifference?

(again, long post about Ryan Miller's eyes removed)

[Weave]

So if the majority is largely silent then is the theory of majority tyranny sort of counterintuitive? Tyranny through indifference?

 

I think in reality it is tyranny of the squeaky wheel, and in that respect indifference most definitely come into play. You don't use illegal drugs? Well, no big deal then if the guy down the street that you don't trust gets his car stolen and sold off by the gov't after a drug raid. Not a purse snatcher? Well, that camera on the corner is to your benefit because if its your purse that's stolen maybe they'll catch the guy now.

 

Obviously there was a call for those cameras, and the no-knock drug raids. There was a group that wanted it because they would benefit from it. Noone really complained when that seizure money was being used to buy sniper rifles and black uniforms for SWAT teams. I don't expect the SWAT team to be at my door so why should it alarm me that they are uniforming themselves so they aren't readily recognized as friendly, helpful Joe Fridays. I don't drink and drive, heck I'm never on the road at 1am so it feels good to know the police are being vigilant and setting up checkpoints about drunk driving late at night.

 

We have a system that was supposed to protect us from this. I don't know where it went wrong.

[darksabre]

 

 

I think in reality it is tyranny of the squeaky wheel, and in that respect indifference most definitely come into play. You don't use illegal drugs? Well, no big deal then if the guy down the street that you don't trust gets his car stolen and sold off by the gov't after a drug raid. Not a purse snatcher? Well, that camera on the corner is to your benefit because if its your purse that's stolen maybe they'll catch the guy now.

 

Obviously there was a call for those cameras, and the no-knock drug raids. There was a group that wanted it because they would benefit from it. Noone really complained when that seizure money was being used to buy sniper rifles and black uniforms for SWAT teams. I don't expect the SWAT team to be at my door so why should it alarm me that they are uniforming themselves so they aren't readily recognized as friendly, helpful Joe Fridays. I don't drink and drive, heck I'm never on the road at 1am so it feels good to know the police are being vigilant and setting up checkpoints about drunk driving late at night.

 

We have a system that was supposed to protect us from this. I don't know where it went wrong.

 

Why is any of this wrong?

[Taro T]

Why is any of this wrong?

Are you referring to his rationale or the end result of law abiding citizens being led out of their houses at gunpoint?

 

Or conformity?

 

Look at Taro's joke......

There's that too.

[darksabre]

 

Are you referring to his rationale or the end result of law abiding citizens being led out of their houses at gunpoint?

 

Neither. Simply the idea that the restrictions that are let stand because they don't bother most people are a bad thing.

[Weave]

Why is any of this wrong?

 

It's been a slow, steady infringement on liberty. You cannot drive around a village today without a police cruiser with a plate scanner reading your plate. You cannot drive after a certain time on the weekend without expectation of a road block. What happened to the concept of presumed innocent? to the idea of reasonable suspicion driving police encounters and not random encounters on the road?

 

We have given our law enforcement so much power through wars on drugs, drunk driving, and terror that we have created a law enforcement community that feels perfectly justified in driving families out of their house at gunpoint with hands on their heads and searching those homes without the residents eyes over them. Cops that are so overwhelming in their use dominance techniques for simple traffic stops.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

(again, long post about Ryan Miller's eyes removed)

 

:o

 

I'm encouraged however by the brainpower here to focus on the more pressing need tonight......

[Weave]

Neither. Simply the idea that the restrictions that are let stand because they don't bother most people are a bad thing.

 

The ultimate minority is the individual. Individual liberty is the most sacred tenet of our society.

[Taro T]

Neither. Simply the idea that the restrictions that are let stand because they don't bother most people are a bad thing.

Short answer: because without them you don't get to a point where police can knock on a door and escort at gunpoint the law abiding owner of the residence attached to that door out into the street when said owner has been accused of no wrongdoing.

[Weave]

Short answer: because without them you don't get to a point where police can knock on a door and escort at gunpoint the law abiding owner of the residence attached to that door out into the street when said owner has been accused of no wrongdoing.

 

And this too.

 

!!ZOMGSLIPPERYSLOPE!! but it's true. All this doesn't happen if we haven't spent the last 30 years empowering our law enforcement to be ready to do this.

[darksabre]

 

 

It's been a slow, steady infringement on liberty. You cannot drive around a village today without a police cruiser with a plate scanner reading your plate. You cannot drive after a certain time on the weekend without expectation of a road block. What happened to the concept of presumed innocent? to the idea of reasonable suspicion driving police encounters and not random encounters on the road?

 

We have given our law enforcement so much power through wars on drugs, drunk driving, and terror that we have created a law enforcement community that feels perfectly justified in driving families out of their house at gunpoint with hands on their heads and searching those homes without the residents eyes over them. Cops that are so overwhelming in their use dominance techniques for simple traffic stops.

 

Liberty isn't anarchy. As soon as you elect to be governed you start sacrificing freedoms. Societies have changing rules and norms. These infringements exist because we aren't fundamentally opposed to them. Our society allows it. Liberty may be threatened but at this time the threat isn't strong enough to concern the indifferent majority.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

Say for instance.....Pat Buchanan was President......and David Duke was mayor of NYC........

 

And there were 2 kids who set off a homemade bomb at the NY marathon.......

 

And the chase led police to the West Village.....and Harlem.....

 

 

And the exact same events took place in the "search"

 

 

What would the conversation be right now? Not here.....we have a big boy thread going on at this point......but America?

 

And this too.

 

!!ZOMGSLIPPERYSLOPE!! but it's true. All this doesn't happen if we haven't spent the last 30 years empowering our law enforcement to be ready to do this.

 

I think the majority of law enforcement uses sense and i pray the military as well.

 

They can buy into 2 jihadists........I hope not a large scale effort.

[Weave]

Liberty isn't anarchy. As soon as you elect to be governed you start sacrificing freedoms. Societies have changing rules and norms. These infringements exist because we aren't fundamentally opposed to them. Our society allows it. Liberty may be threatened but at this time the threat isn't strong enough to concern the indifferent majority.

 

I don't want anarchy. I'm not looking to press for an Ayn Rand style world. But again, we have a system in place that was supposed to protect individual liberty from the majority. I am talking about nothing more than a return to presumption of innocence, a standard of reasonable suspicion driving encounters, and a law enforcement community that isn't empowered to treat its employers like we are a danger to them. Oh, and little things like treating suspects in ways mandated by our Constitution, like say, Mirandizing them.

[darksabre]

 

 

I don't want anarchy. I'm not looking to press for an Ayn Rand style world. But again, we have a system in place that was supposed to protect individual liberty from the majority. I am talking about nothing more than a return to presumption of innocence, a standard of reasonable suspicion driving encounters, and a law enforcement community that isn't empowered to treat its employers like we are a danger to them. Oh, and little things like treating suspects in ways mandated by our Constitution, like say, Mirandizing them.

 

They Mirandized the last suspect yesterday did they not?And don't get me started on the Fed's misuse of WMD.

 

Presumption of innocence only applies to the courts. Checkpoints are here to stay. So are plate readers. As long as these items continue to prove useful in the protection of public safety there will be no challenging their use.

[Weave]

I think the majority of law enforcement uses sense and i pray the military as well.

 

They can buy into 2 jihadists........I hope not a large scale effort.

 

They do what they are trained and told to do. Did that cop at the bottom of the stairs think it sensible to scream "Hands on your head" to the 2nd person coming out of the house? An obvious resident of that house? He did what we all would do in that situation. He reverted to his training. We have created the scenario where *that* is the right thing for him to do by turning our cops into machines that go around monitoring us all day for unapproved activity and acting swiftly and unapologetically when they see it. I don't blame the cops. I blame us for allowing law enforcement to evolve into a paramilitary force with absolute power.

 

They Mirandized the last suspect yesterday did they not?And don't get me started on the Fed's misuse of WMD.

 

Presumption of innocence only applies to the courts. Checkpoints are here to stay. So are plate readers. As long as these items continue to prove useful in the protection of public safety there will be no challenging their use.

 

Pulling families out of their homes at gunpoint and sequestering them away while their homes are searched is useful to protection and public safety too. Don't make it right. We've created an acceptable environment for that sort of thing.

 

It may be a useless effort but it is one thing I intend to speak up about.

 

And the correct time to Mirandize that suspect was while he was on his back in handcuffs. Like any other criminal suspect.

[darksabre]

 

 

They do what they are trained and told to do. Did that cop at the bottom of the stairs think it sensible to scream "Hands on your head" to the 2nd person coming out of the house? An obvious resident of that house? He did what we all would do in that situation. He reverted to his training. We have created the scenario where *that* is the right thing for him to do by turning our cops into machines that go around monitoring us all day for unapproved activity and acting swiftly and unapologetically when they see it. I don't blame the cops. I blame us for allowing law enforcement to evolve into a paramilitary force with absolute power.

 

This I agree with 100% though. Unforunately the same reasons we have for supporting the second amendment are why policing has evolved to this point. The nature of crime now requires it.

 

And as far as why they didn't Mirandize him on the spot, I don't think they expect that his testimony will be needed to convict him. As long as the questions they ask him aren't going to be used for his or another individuals prosecution, Miranda is pointless.

 

Also the public safety exception to Miranda pretty much negates it in situations like this one.

 

I also haven't seen any reports indicating that he was capable of acknowledging his Miranda rights at the time anyway. Remember that he had been injured in the throat.

[Weave]

This I agree with 100% though. Unforunately the same reasons we have for supporting the second amendment are why policing has evolved to this point. The nature of crime now requires it.

 

I don't entirely agree with this. In good part you are likely correct. The nature of crime does require it. That I can agree with, but it is what we as a society have decided to fight that requires this evolution of law enforcement, not crime in and of itself. What crime is it that requires this sort of militarization of law enforcement? From my POV it is almost entirely drug interdiction. If we aren't having a War on Drugs are we training cops for "dynamic entries"? In all but the largest cities, probably not. Are we installing cameras on street corners in inner cities? I'm thinking probably not there either. Do we have cops decked out in black suits and masks carrying military weaponry? No. they wouldn't have much of any reason at all to use it. Are we training cops to be ultra aggressive if we don't have a war on drugs? I really don't think so. So, from where I am sitting, this whole evolution of watching every citizen started with drug interdiction but as soon as we became comfortable with it we added to it. And now we have cops trained in military techniques overwhelming citizens in the name of public safety.

 

I am tired of the War on drugs. I am not an ilicit drug user. Haven't been since before I left college, a loooooong time ago. I used to not care about the War on Drugs because it didn't affect me. But it has changed our country for the worse. And I am not willing to accept that it won't change back. Step 1 is getting rid of drug interdiction that doesn't work.

 

Holy crap did this get off track.

 

I blame me.

[...]

Liberty isn't anarchy. As soon as you elect to be governed you start sacrificing freedoms. Societies have changing rules and norms. These infringements exist because we aren't fundamentally opposed to them. Our society allows it. Liberty may be threatened but at this time the threat isn't strong enough to concern the indifferent majority.

Maybe that will change sooner rather than later. When you're picking up your kids from school, and the second grader forgets something like a mitten, but he's not allowed back in the same doors he exited a minute earlier because "that's the rules", the indifferent majority better start waking up a little. Or maybe, after the cops are forced to go check on some obviously spoiled dogs in someone's backyard because a nosey pedestrian couldn't see the water bowl, you might wonder why the cops aren't out busting real criminals. Little things eventually add up. So, really, it's okay to society an eight year old has to go home without a mitten on a winter day because everyone would rather be paranoid? Is that liberty? Someone can't see a dog bowl, so it's worth sending a cop over to talk to the owners about it? You think that's okay, it's a worthy sacrifice? How about your choice of cup size for your soda, that's a worthy sacrifice, too, right?

[Weave]

This I agree with 100% though. Unforunately the same reasons we have for supporting the second amendment are why policing has evolved to this point. The nature of crime now requires it.

 

And as far as why they didn't Mirandize him on the spot, I don't think they expect that his testimony will be needed to convict him. As long as the questions they ask him aren't going to be used for his or another individuals prosecution, Miranda is pointless.

 

Also the public safety exception to Miranda pretty much negates it in situations like this one.

 

I also haven't seen any reports indicating that he was capable of acknowledging his Miranda rights at the time anyway. Remember that he had been injured in the throat.

 

Dark, the whole idea that there are exceptions to Mirandizing is the problem. Today a bomber suspect is excepted from Miranda because of public safety reasons. Tomorrow it is someone somewhat less heinous. And after that, less heinous still. But it is always justified. How long is it before it is the heroin dealer that unknowingly has bad stuff he's selling? Civil liberties and our basic protections as citizens are supposed to self evident and not subject to evolution. We are witnessing a rapid evolution of our liberties and protections from our government agencies.

[...]

This I agree with 100% though. Unforunately the same reasons we have for supporting the second amendment are why policing has evolved to this point. The nature of crime now requires it.

Do they not have SWAT-like police in England or Australia? Policing has evolved because technology and strategies have evolved. Criminals are no more evolved than they were back in Wild West. Except for funky, technologically savvy criminals like in Die Hard.

[bunomatic]

Do they not have SWAT-like police in England or Australia? Policing has evolved because technology and strategies have evolved. Criminals are no more evolved than they were back in Wild West. Except for funky, technologically savvy criminals like in Die Hard.

 

Or the idiots recently busted in Toronto and Montreal for planning to blow up a via rail train from Toronto Bound for New York. Apparently well educated but told the judge that the criminal code doesn't apply to him because its not a holy book. Why is this individual in North America in the first place ? Go blow up your own friggin country. The one good turn that came from this sad tale of idiocy was that the Imam at the Mosque that these morons worshipped at is the one that alerted the authorities to these two. Credit should go to this man for turning these potential mass murderers in.