|
|
| From | Message |
|---|
|
 jan ... |
|
i don't care for cops getting physical with me immediately when I challenge their authority in a non violent situation. someone might ask......how ? but if you as a person are out there on the edge where police and citizens cross paths...then you either understand cops physical nature to a response or you haven't challenged a cop.
strip search and a finger up your ass is commmon after you are handcuffed.
|
|
chaz
I do agree with you about the difficulties of determining potential needs to reduce or eliminate freedoms, but the world we live in today was beyond the imagination of our nation's founders.
I fault the idea of directing all issues to the words in a Constitution that was written 250 years ago when so many of the listed freedoms have been twisted by organizations such as the media, the legal industry, AMA, freedom of speech abusers, etc. There are a few freedoms that need to be revised or strengthened so that they can disclude those who fight for the right to abuse them
|
|
i think the guys who wrote the constitution were on the ball. I think we 21st century citizens are more stone age thought then enlightened men.
|
|
Ed ...
... yes, they were extraordinarily insightful, and deserve our respect for setting in motion a modern plan for government well before anyone else in the world. Still, as Jan as pointed out, they could not have foreseen where cultural evolution would take the world or even a fraction of the technology that impacts us all. I do agree we still seem to evaluate our challenges as those Stone Age folk of long ago ... what I miss are the statesmen (and women) who could keep us on track in this modern age.
|
|
well, it's not been entirely an advocacy wasteland in America
chaz, one does not have to go back two centuries -- go back, say, two decades:
From that more recent past, these American advocates immediately come to mind:
Barbara Jordan, Dawson Mathis, William Kunstler. . .
|
dmaestro
09-Apr-12, 21:21
|
If you read the story, the point the dissenting justices were making is that using security as a blanket justification for invasive strip searches regardless of who is being arrested or the circumstances makes a mockery of probable cause. As I said, it is customary to require prisoners to take showers and change clothes. Technology exists to detect weapons, drugs, etc. In this case given the circumstances of the arrest there was virtually zero chance the guy was hiding weapons or drugs in a body cavity. And he wasn't even guilty of a crime, the police simply refused to accept the documentation he had in the car at the time of arrest and then transferred him to another jail where he was strip searched again--that is my problem with this decision. I am quite familiar with security administration and there is too much going on that conditions people to accept what is convenient and psychologically motivated over what is actually effective. In effect, people are inconvenienced and yet a determined person can defeat these methods in ways I do not describe here. I expect you will in future years see in airports the new machines that can see inside the body, and that is the only real way to stop determined suicide bombers, but the radiation will be a little stronger in effect.
|
|
|
Log in 
