5 ms·

Again, by that logic, any random checks, including DUI checks, are unacceptable. That's what the first link is partially about. Second link is the 4th amendment

by Aoyagi 10y ago

Again, by that logic, any random checks, including DUI checks, are unacceptable. That's what the first link is partially about. Second link is the 4th amendment and third link is an irrelevant opinion that doesn't even open from my end. All of that only supports the theory that dgacmu is one of those amusing "sovereign citizens" who treat the police like nuisance. So yes, I ignored those links. And a lot of nonsense in that post. Edit: I did learn that random stops are mostly illegal though. What a country to be a cop in. Now I'm doubly not surprised why American police acts the way they sometimes act.

dgacmu 10y ago
The amusing bit is that you can't tell the difference between someone who believes strongly that everyone (police and citizens) should follow the law, and the soverign citizen adherents, who believe [1]: "that they are answerable only to their particular interpretation of the common law and are not subject to any statutes or proceedings at the federal, state, or municipal levels" The soverign citizens live in a delusional world that wants to pretend that our judicial system has no say over them. Their beliefs and actions range from the mildly worrisome to outright domestic terrorism. I live in a world in which I believe that understanding one's rights, responsibilities, and limits within our judicial system is important. And also that understanding why we have those laws is useful - a lesson you seem intent to ignore. There are historical reasons for the powers granted to the police, and the limitations placed on those powers, primarily with an eye towards balancing the need to protect the populace as a whole while preventing specific abuses of power. Here's one example: https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-files-suit-stop-racial-profiling-utah-highway-patrol https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-files-suit-stop-racial-profil... (Note: The ACLU won, and the police were fined $2,000 for engaging in illegal racial profiling.) It's hard to appreciate that case without the context, which is that this behavior was happening _constantly_ in this area of Utah, and in several other areas of the country: https://www.utahbar.org/utah-bar-journal/article/a-problem-of-perception-race-and-the-legal-system-in-utah/ https://www.utahbar.org/utah-bar-journal/article/a-problem-o... If you can't understand that both citizens, politicians, the military, and police need to operate within a well-defined legal framework, I worry for you. When the Czech Police conspired to expel Romani from housing in Bohumin in 2005, including _cutting off their hot water supply in winter_, the same laws that limit the actions the police can take were the the same laws that eventually led to a remedy of the situation and a fine against the town. The same kinds of restrictive laws, in this case against using the military to spy on civilians, led to the resignation of Petr Necas. Or perhaps you're in the camp that believes "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"? [2] After all, Necas' ex-wife had committed the horrible crime of not wanting to be married to him, so clearly deserved surveillance. Lest you think I'm picking on the Czech Republic, do recall that the Watergate scandal took down Nixon in the US, for similar abuses of official power. We grant power to the police because people are imperfect, and sometimes break the law in ways that endanger or harm others. We place limitations on the power of the police because police are human too. fin. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement [2] http://jacquesmattheij.com/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide http://jacquesmattheij.com/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide

by Aoyagi 10y ago

dgacmu 10y ago

The amusing bit is that you can't tell the difference between someone who believes strongly that everyone (police and citizens) should follow the law, and the soverign citizen adherents, who believe [1]: "that they are answerable only to their particular interpretation of the common law and are not subject to any statutes or proceedings at the federal, state, or municipal levels" The soverign citizens live in a delusional world that wants to pretend that our judicial system has no say over them. Their beliefs and actions range from the mildly worrisome to outright domestic terrorism. I live in a world in which I believe that understanding one's rights, responsibilities, and limits within our judicial system is important. And also that understanding why we have those laws is useful - a lesson you seem intent to ignore. There are historical reasons for the powers granted to the police, and the limitations placed on those powers, primarily with an eye towards balancing the need to protect the populace as a whole while preventing specific abuses of power. Here's one example: https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-files-suit-stop-racial-profiling-utah-highway-patrol https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-files-suit-stop-racial-profil... (Note: The ACLU won, and the police were fined $2,000 for engaging in illegal racial profiling.) It's hard to appreciate that case without the context, which is that this behavior was happening _constantly_ in this area of Utah, and in several other areas of the country: https://www.utahbar.org/utah-bar-journal/article/a-problem-of-perception-race-and-the-legal-system-in-utah/ https://www.utahbar.org/utah-bar-journal/article/a-problem-o... If you can't understand that both citizens, politicians, the military, and police need to operate within a well-defined legal framework, I worry for you. When the Czech Police conspired to expel Romani from housing in Bohumin in 2005, including _cutting off their hot water supply in winter_, the same laws that limit the actions the police can take were the the same laws that eventually led to a remedy of the situation and a fine against the town. The same kinds of restrictive laws, in this case against using the military to spy on civilians, led to the resignation of Petr Necas. Or perhaps you're in the camp that believes "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"? [2] After all, Necas' ex-wife had committed the horrible crime of not wanting to be married to him, so clearly deserved surveillance. Lest you think I'm picking on the Czech Republic, do recall that the Watergate scandal took down Nixon in the US, for similar abuses of official power. We grant power to the police because people are imperfect, and sometimes break the law in ways that endanger or harm others. We place limitations on the power of the police because police are human too. fin. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement [2] http://jacquesmattheij.com/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide http://jacquesmattheij.com/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide