Baltimore protests

[jamo]

If I have nothing to hide, why would I care if they asked what I was doing?

Same reason we don't all love the TSA pat-downs or having our emails spied on.

[dkolo]

Because you don't poke someone in the eye with a stick just because you can. If you are dealing with an officer of the law, who should command respect by nature, who is working a beat where they spend the majority of their day rounding up, let's say "unsavory" characters all day, it IS stupid to rouse suspicion. Running from the cops means you flunked Common Sense 101. An 8-year old kid knows better. Like the laws or not, they have a job to do, and if 90% of their collars are for drug offenses, and a guy in a high crime area runs away from them on sight, they should have the right themselves to track him down and at least question him. Toss him in a van and violate protocol to teach him a lesson, not so much. Common sense says if a person runs from the police at their mere sight, they have something to hide. Don't tell me the person has been so oppressed that they run from the law like a Pavlov dog every time they see a police officer. The guy with 18 priors for drugs and assault probably had a guilty conscience for some other petty crime he had committed recently. I've been arguing all day long for the downtrodden in this situation, but at some point we need to get real about it. A cop needs to work on instinct as well. A guy who runs away because he got a dirty look is suspicious.

Hang out in a county jail for a couple of hours some day. Think about what a thankless job a beat cop must be after inspecting what goes on. It's a carousel of stubborn, mouthy, generally young men who hate not only the cops but themselves as well quite often. The last thing a cop wants to hear is another arrogant young man declaring "I know my rights, blah, blah, blah." It's just not smart.

There's lots of thankless jobs. And anyone can respect a cop without sacrificing their rights. Unless a cop has reasonable suspicion that you're engaging in criminal activity, you show a cop trying to talk to you the same respect you show people asking you to sign their petition on the street, which is to say that, if you don't feel like doing it, you say "No, thank you" and go on with your day. If they pursue the interaction further, they're the ones who are in the wrong.

I blame @RFKFREAK re now. Clearly he needs a frisking because he has something up his sleeves.

[14ledo81]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 14ledo81

If I have nothing to hide, why would I care if they asked what I was doing?

Same reason we don't all love the TSA pat-downs or having our emails spied on.

Doesn't bother me.

If it is useful to catch criminals, I say go for it.

[dsc123]

Doesn't bother me.

If it is useful to catch criminals, I say go for it.

Do you think this way about the 2nd Amendment or only the 4th?

What if you do have something to hide, that isn't illegal?

[Jakester23]

Sadly, you're right.  There's still a lot of work to do on all sides if we're ever going to reach full equality. You can be as polite and respectful as possible, but if you tell the cop you're leaving because you don't agree why he pulled you over, it'll likely not go well for you because, I would imagine, when pulling someone over, the officer has to have a reason to pull them over and detain them and my guess is that a good percentage of the time, it's because he believe the person committed a traffic infraction.

Well your not always committing traffic infraction besides driving while Garcia

[14ledo81]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 14ledo81

Doesn't bother me.

If it is useful to catch criminals, I say go for it.

Do you think this way about the 2nd Amendment or only the 4th?

What if you do have something to hide, that isn't illegal?

I guess the key word (to me) on the 4th is "unreasonable".  Who gets to decide what is unreasonable?

I would not hide something on my body (legal), and try to board a plane if I wanted to make sure no one would see it.  I am not saying I enjoy being searched, but I am willing to undergo the random search if it helps the "greater good".

[dsc123]

I guess the key word (to me) on the 4th is "unreasonable".  Who gets to decide what is unreasonable?

The Judiciary Branch of the government. But the point is, you probably don't think speech should be limited so long as it's for the "greater good" nor the right to bear arms, so why the right to be secure in your persons and papers?

[14ledo81]

[quote name="14ledo81" url="/t/81692/baltimore-protests/180#post_1138562"] I guess the key word (to me) on the 4th is "unreasonable".  Who gets to decide what is unreasonable?

The Judiciary Branch of the government. But the point is, you probably don't think speech should be limited so long as it's for the "greater good" nor the right to bear arms, so why the right to be secure in your persons and papers?[/quote] Speech and the right to bear arms are sometimes limited. On the phone so it's not easy to elaborate. Basically I can't take my gun anywhere, and say whatever I want wherever I want either. Do you think the random searches before boarding planes should end?

[dsc123]

Speech and the right to bear arms are sometimes limited.

On the phone so it's not easy to elaborate.

Basically I can't take my gun anywhere, and say whatever I want wherever I want either.

Do you think the random searches before boarding planes should end?

Yes.  The courts places limits on both.   For example, you can be stopped, and patted down, if there is specific, articulable, and individualized suspicion that crime is afoot.

But you're saying that it should go even further--search whatever they want if its useful to catch criminals.  My point was that if that same standard were applied to the first and second amendment, you'd probably be very unhappy.   For example, banning guns might be useful to stopping bank robberies, but you wouldn't agree with such a law, right?

Or perhaps that wasn't what you meant and I misunderstood you--it wouldn't be the first time ;)

[newtogolf]

The discussion gets derailed when it comes to constitutional rights because most are very selective about what rights they want to protect and which ones they don't.   The right of people to own guns and freedom of religious expression have been severely compromised as has free speech in this country but when it comes to answering questions from police officers people want to defer to their Constitutional rights.

[mmoan2]

There's lots of thankless jobs. And anyone can respect a cop without sacrificing their rights. Unless a cop has reasonable suspicion that you're engaging in criminal activity, you show a cop trying to talk to you the same respect you show people asking you to sign their petition on the street, which is to say that, if you don't feel like doing it, you say "No, thank you" and go on with your day. If they pursue the interaction further, they're the ones who are in the wrong.

I blame @RFKFREAK for me being here now. Clearly he needs a frisking because he has something up his sleeves.

Running away on sight to me is reasonable suspicion. Also, cops often ask questions of people who fit a profile of a suspected criminal. If someone calls a tip in that a tall white kid in a baseball cap stole a van, and the police are tasked with finding that person, they may canvas and area asking random tall white kids with baseball caps some pointed questions. It may seem intrusive, but there's a reason behind them you may not understand. Cops are not just like anyone else. They have a unique job and I don't mind sacrificing some liberty. It has become too much for some parts of society, but to me this argument is a false equivalency.

[Golfingdad]

The right of people to own guns and freedom of religious expression have been severely compromised ...

They have?  When?

[newtogolf]

Running away on sight to me is reasonable suspicion. Also, cops often ask questions of people who fit a profile of a suspected criminal. If someone calls a tip in that a tall white kid in a baseball cap stole a van, and the police are tasked with finding that person, they may canvas and area asking random tall white kids with baseball caps some pointed questions. It may seem intrusive, but there's a reason behind them you may not understand. Cops are not just like anyone else. They have a unique job and I don't mind sacrificing some liberty. It has become too much for some parts of society, but to me this argument is a false equivalency.

Exactly, some would say DWI check points are not constitutional and technically they would be correct but conversely people refuse to not drink and drive which places all of us at risk so what's the solution?

[newtogolf]

They have?  When?

Ask someone in Washington DC how many guns  edit t hey own. they legally own.

[Golfingdad]

Ask someone in Washington DC how many guns they own.

I don't think I know anybody who lives in DC.  The laws don't look terribly unreasonable here though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_District_of_Columbia  Is that page incorrect?

Also, what about the other thing?  The "severely compromised right of religious expression?"

[newtogolf]

I don't think I know anybody who lives in DC.  The laws don't look terribly unreasonable here though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_District_of_Columbia  Is that page incorrect?

Also, what about the other thing?  The "severely compromised right of religious expression?"

I don't want to derail the thread into other topics which will surely put us at odds. My point is we've seen an erosion of our Constitutional rights over time and it will likely continue, we can't just pick and choose which ones we want to defend since they are all protected by the same document.

[dsc123]

I don't think I know anybody who lives in DC.  The laws don't look terribly unreasonable here though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_District_of_Columbia  Is that page incorrect?

Also, what about the other thing?  The "severely compromised right of religious expression?"

You (kinda) know me!

The carry permits are what you want to focus on.  You can own a gun everywhere, I think, but you need a permit to carry it outside your home.  DC's stance on this has been in flux.  I think it was flat out illegal to carry in DC until the Supreme Court struck that law down, maybe 5 years ago?  Then they tried to fix the law so that it complied with the Supreme Court's decision, but still essentially blocked all gun ownership, and that was struck down recently.  The current version of the law says you have to prove "good cause" for a carry permit, which is basically still a no.  This is based on MD's gun laws.  You have to pretty much show that there is a threat to your life and there's no other way to protect yourself.

owning one, which is still basically a no.  And that's modeled on Maryland's

[dsc123]

The discussion gets derailed when it comes to constitutional rights .

+1

sorry for my role in derailing this!