The Glade 4.0

Applies only to trial and punishment. Presumtion of innocence does not stop people from trying to prove you guilty.

Really, this argument is phenomenally stupid. So the police show up ahead of time and the gunfight never happens. That's presumtion of guilt how exactly? Or the gunfight does happen and they're there and arrest people.. for what they actually did.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Only phenomenally stupid to those to obtuse to see the abuse of power and the re-categorization of people to fit what the authority wants to do.

Of course, as a die hard authoritative cop, protecting rights is a nuisance that undermines your ability, so should be circumvented.

Freedom sucks for everyone who likes to fancy themselves as an authority figure.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

In response to Corolinth's post, I feel it prudent to quote this little piece of wisdom I happened across somewhere in the morass of the intart00bz ...

_________________

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose. Nothing, don't mean nothing it if ain't free.

Freedom costs a buck oh five.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

So the issue is me personally. Got it. I'm done here.



Same here.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No no, you have to hold the i.

"...oh fiiiiive."

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Oh so you are a cop then?

I'm involved with law enforcement. I'm not what people usually mean when they say "cop", but I used to be. DEtails beyond that aren't for public consumption.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I wouldn't say that it's you personally, it's your ideas people are finding offensive DE.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Then you're wrong:





and of course:



which is pretty obviously a reference to me.

I don't give a flying **** if anyone finds my viewpoints offensive or not. I'm not, however, going to continue to discuss them with people who would rather make the discussion into ad homeniem appeals to motive regarding my personal situation ebcause I'm calling into question their idea of how things work. If there's nothing going on but trying to score anti-authority cool points, then **** it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Again, it isn't you, it's the ideas you espouse and attribute to yourself. You are like the Ground Zero mosque: You have every right to say it, but when what your ideas and ideals prove to be offensive and ill-conceived, don't be surprised, or get butt-hurt, when people weigh you and your ideas in the court of public opinion.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Again, you're incorrect. I demostrated why, and it has nothing to do with my ideas being ill-conceived; it has to do with a bunch of people getting pissed off when it's pointed out that things do not, in fact, work the way they claim they work, and wanting to reference my personal situation (which, like I said, is not for public consumption) as some sort of argument.

I'm not the least bit surprised people are disagreeing with me. Do you really think I thought I'd get a lot of agreement? Come on. I know perfectly well the police/government boogeyman with sinister motivations is simply a given assumption around here. I'm not getting "butt-hurt" either. Like I said, I'm refusing to continue the discussion with people who immediately retreat into ad homeniem and appeal to motive.

As for offensive and the court of public opinion, all you're doing is slapping a new coat of paint on Monte's line that speech has consequences; the same one he eventually used to argue that Glenn Beck is somehow responsible whenever anyone gets shot.

So, once again, I'm done. The subject of law enforcement just sends too large a portion of this board into irrational hystrionics.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No DE, anyone else who was expousing authoritarian jack booted ideals that oppress citizens would be derided in the same manner. If you had rights-respecting positions it wouldn't be an issue.

So it isn't you - its your disgusting ideas.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I've actually found myself somewhat swayed by most of DE's arguments. He's presented logical and well through out arguments.

I'm still not sure that I'm comfortable with the use of these GPS units without a warrant, but this is a fairly grey area so I can see both sides of the argument.

Since your argument is nothing but predjudicial language, begging the question, and generally admitting that you're arguing with it only because it doesn't agree with yours and not on the merits, I'm not going to discuss it with you either. You're arguing about me because I hold disgusting ideas to you emotionally, not on the merits.

Go back and compare your argument to Stathol's, Raf's or Aizle's. I see three people here trying to make logical arguments addressing the issues. You're not one of them.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Diamondeye:

The same way you summarily dismissed Stathol's position? There's legitimate, logical, and well-reasoned complaints against the position and arguments you have made. There is, in point of fact, actual dialog engaging the ideas you have stated. The sum of substantive response is basically, "The Constitution is just guidelines ... really."

_________________

Given you have failed to do any such thing regarding my comments, other than try to dismiss arguments based upon one sided considerations of what is or is not appropriate, this tantrum on your part amounts to "leave me alone".

As for the two comments of mine you link as "attacks on your character", or whatever non-sense you have decided to label them to duck out of the debate, you fail there as well.

The first was a direct response to your comment, which was "irrelevant", when I pointed that video goes both ways, and banning its use against police officers is ignoring the complete other half. You don't like it because it used to record encounters with police by the general public and sometimes reveals police abusing their authority. Your argument amounted to it should be banned because its unfair to cops that it might only show some of the event. It goes both ways. That you claimed that facet is irrelevant ties directly to your position/vocation and should be of no surprise.

The second comment is an observation about your tendencies when it comes to topics like this and your declaration that something was "phenomenally stupid" due to your blinders.

I simply do not understand the attitude of police, or of their supporters in this thread. In a situation where it is in the best interests of the police to do whatever they can to have good public-police relations, why do anything that would cause the general public to look at them with suspicion and mistrust? It seem to me that "screw the public perception" is the attitude being presented, and that is a dangerous attitude for the police to have. It adds fuel to the perception of the police as jack-booted thugs. It will make their job more difficult, not easier, so what will they want as the next escalation?

It seems to me that, were I a policeman, I'd want the general public to see me as someone trustworthy and reliable, not as someone sneaking around putting tracking devices on people's cars without so much as a warrant. But, like I said, maybe "screw the public perception" is the working attitude of police nowadays.

I suspect its a condition of their constant experience, as it with most other jobs in which you are dealing with difficult situations, and most of those situations are self-inflicted, or you wouldn't be in that position to begin with.

Based on similiar, personal experience, I am going to guess that a majority of the police interaction in a given day is not with upstanding citizens who made a minor mistake, etc, but with what would be considered the "dregs" of society, and this group makes for a very difficult work environment and daily routine. On top of that, I would think police in this position have heard and scene it all when it comes to "excuses", and probably have a fairly well developed sense of probability (or at least think they do) that someone actually did what they are denying.

From that perspective, it's not a matter of guilt or innocence, but of not being able to prove well enough to get past the defense attorneys. Things that make it easier to remove from the street those in that position makes their job easier, and less focused on the high demand/low return areas so they can address more important matters.

Then you get the growing segment of the population that feels the job of police is prevention, which it is not, and demand more results at lowering crime rates by getting criminals off the street.

Unfortunately, as you see in this thread, sometimes those same police forget that the sum of the population is not the group they have to deal with daily, and forget that that their real job is to protect the rights of citizens, so they advocate things that make their job easier at the expense of what they should be protecting.

Since I didn't "summarily dismiss" anything, but in fact responded to all his points and even agreed that he was correct about the potentials for computer analysis of various data, you can **** right off.

This has nothing to do with the Constitution being guidelines, this has to do with people wanting to impose their own, additional, extra-Constitutional limitations on technology for no reason other than their own paranoia and stereotypes about law enforcement.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I've responded to all of your arguments. Sorry, but failing to agree with them, and pointing out why you're wrong when you try to invent your own definitions for searches and warrants is not dismissing them.



Why? Becuase you say so? Wrong. The fact of the matter is tht you just got all pissy and went to ad homeniem attacks.



Ahh, so now you're telling me what I think, despite the fact that I said I don't think it should be banned in the other thread that you cited and then I repeated it here.

The fact of the matter is that it isn't as much of a problem for citizens as it is for police as the police aren't going around taking videos of selected portions of incidents, pasting them on YouTube and then trying to get a court of public opinion conviction.

Of course, now you revert right back to ad homeniem in your last line, talking about my work, which is also an appeal to motive. If your position had real merit and wasn't just about you sitting there seething with anger you might be able to come up with an argument that isn't fallacious.



Whatever. It's amazing how any disagreement with you must be "blinders" when you're in the "fear the police boogeyman!" crowd.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The problem with this is that "the police" are not a hive mind. Police officers have widely varying attitudes on a lot of different matters.

Second, just because something adds fuel to the perception of the police as jack-booted thugs to a certain segment of the population does not mean it does to the average person. In point of fact, the suspicion and mistrust of police espoused here is not typical for the populace no matter how loudly a few people might sceam to the contrary. Most people are quite happy to see the police and are appreciative of their efforts.

Third, public perception is not an end in and of itself. It's a factor, but the need for positive public relations is weighed against many others. In point of fact, the best thing for public relations is to effectively catch criminals which is the reason we have police in the first place.



You're assuming that the general public feels that way just because the police might using tracking devices on suspects. Most people do not make these slippery-slope leaps.

The problem is not that the police are sating "screw public perception", it's that most of the public does not have that perception. Most of what does would have that perception no matter what the polcie do either because they are criminals, because they have been brought up to think the police are "The White Man" or because they simply have authority issues.

In fact, there is really no "public perception." There can be general trends and attitudes, but there is a wide variety of actual opinion. The need for a warrant for surveillance is an extra-Constitutional requirement for a warrant that most people would not want because it would mean catching fewer criminals.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Perhaps you should have re-read the thread before you threw down this gauntlet, because your "bare assertion" is not substantiated by the evidence at hand.

Stathol's First Substantive Post
Your Response
1. Appeal to Authority: "...because the Courts have so ruled."
2. Hell, just read the rest of the post ... it amounts to ... You're wrong because I have a different level for defining "reasonable suspicion", which is based on some sort of nebulous and undisclosed "expert authority" not for "public consumption."
3. Stathol's rebuttal still has no response.

So, yes, you did in point of fact summarily dismiss Stathol's argument.We'll start here with your continued assertion that the Fourth Amendment does not say the following:At what point does it privilege "Home" above "persons", "papers", and "effects"? More to the point, at what point does the Fourth Amendment allow a lesser standard for things beyond "home"? You keep arguing that rulings are legitimate, but even a basic textual examination of the Fourth Amendment allows no such thing. More to the point, when coupled with the Fifth Amendment, at what point does the Constitution permit you to demand or expect information from me when I have at no point given you probable cause to expect me of a crime? Because, your "assertion" that the Fourth and Fifth Amendments don't say what they say is 90% of the issue in this thread.I excerpt this particularly poignant part of the 5th because the phrase "without due process of law" qualifies both procedural clauses in it. And since the Fourth Amendment establishes a warrant under "probable clause" as the qualifier of due process; please, enlighten me to as to how people are asserting the Constitution says things it does not? Any standard short of a "warrant" and "probable cause" is insufficient with regard to the Constitution for police information gathering. Any ruling that says otherwise is fundamentally and factually wrong. So, let me know when you can address the fact that you are upholding Constitutionally contradictory standards ...

Until then, you really have no authority on this matter.

_________________