🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 06:54:42 GMT, Paul Morgan <here@home.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 19:51:46 -0400, GC <assistant_madman@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>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:
>>>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.
>
>I think you should find out just what the police are out there for,
>then come back.

I think you should read this and come back when you understand what it
means: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

>If fishnet tactics is what it takes to get impaired drivers off the
>road, then I'm all for it. These are the ones that force the results
>we have now. Jesus, it isn't brain surgery, once the idiots that break
>the law are off the streets, then the check-stops go away.

Will they? Are you absolutely sure about that? I suppose you also
believe that privatizing healthcare will cause the gov't to lower
taxes. 

>>
>>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.
>
>
>And the way to prove guilt is through strip search, etc. see how far
>you get through an airport by refusing a search of luggage, person,
>etc. Don't forget to claim your rights though.

You really have no concept of public vs. private, do you?

>Do you read and believe the drivel you are posting? "We are under no
>obligation to make their job easier" is the biggest pile of shit I
>have read here since Amero left. Why do you think the police are so
>frustrated now, because of wanna-be lawyers like yourself. We are all
>oppressed under the police state until something happens to you.

Great argument 'biggest pile of shit'. Care to back that up with a
flush?