🚀 go-pugleaf

"GC" <assistant_madman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bepsvukpjmu2jono5mnmf98h21es4avs7q@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 19:34:50 GMT, Paul Morgan <here@home.net> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 11:18:50 -0400, Mr Ed <Ed@w3source.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>Richard Collins wrote:

No, I didn't. :-)

> >The big point is the same as photo radar, if you are doing nothing
> >wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Why don't you get up in arms
> >over the small percentage of drivers that are causing the response?
>
> You really don't get it, do you? It's not about whether somebody is
> doing something right or wrong, it's whether the police have the right
> to act in the manner they are. Common belief is the police are there
> to catch the 'bad guys', whoever they may be. In actuality, they are
> supposed to be there to uphold the rights of the citizens and of the
> state. They should be upholding our right to privacy, safety, and
> security via trained police work, not fishnet tactics that ensnare the
> whole to catch a few.

Maybe it's the penalty you pay to live in a relatively "safe" society. Once
you agree to a "polic force", you tacitly agree to some loss of freedom. The
two go hand in hand.

> If you aren't doing anything wrong, would you submit to a strip search
> to prove it? Why should you have to prove your innocence - it's the
> police and crown's job to prove guilt and we are under no obligation
> to make their job easier.

The police have no requirement to "consider you innocent until proven
guilty". They are completely free to consider you "guilty" from the get-go.

And, guess what? By and large, they do.