🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 20:51:35 -0500, "Richard  Collins"
<r..collins@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>
>"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. :-)

Whoops - snipped at the wrong place. Shoulda left you out and kept
Paul in... :)

>
>> >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.

You're correct - there is definitely a balance to be maintained
between upholding the rights of the citizens vs. the rights of the
state. And in some circumstances personal rights may be inconvenienced
to allow for the rights of society and the state as a whole to
function properly. However, whenever this happens we should demand a
damn good reason to allow it lest the state get too comfortable with
their demands over our rights.

>> 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.

And that scares me.