5 ms·

But the end does not justify the means, due to the fact that it is a violation of their 4th Amendment specifically the right to be secure in their persons, hous

by kls 6y ago

But the end does not justify the means, due to the fact that it is a violation of their 4th Amendment specifically the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. Illegal searches are illegal no matter the sound basis after the fact. As an order of our society, historically police where not supposed to go looking for crime. They where commissioned to enforce the law. One cannot enforce the law by breaking the law and it has set a very bad precedence that the police now go looking for crime. Because if they "believe" you are a criminal there is a better than average chance they are going to find something no matter how petty or insignificant. The point being, it does not matter the end result, it never justifies the action in retrospect as the person is and should be assumed innocent until legal evidence of a crime is uncovered. If it was obtained illegally all evidence even parallel construction should be tossed out for the taint it bring with it.

dllthomas 6y ago
All of that is true, and nonetheless the parent comment stands: it will be rhetorically more convincing if you show how this negatively impacts the law-abiding.
- kls 6y ago
  While it may be move convincing, the hope is for people to see that these rights exist for a reason and that even in the presence of mortal outrage, they should still be defended. Because someone out there, is morally outraged at the way you live your life and would make something illegal that you do if they could. That is the whole point of the bill of rights and the amendments. Is to guarantee a base level of freedom no matter how the winds change. I don't understand why that is so hard for people to get. Maybe it's because I am older and boy have I seen the winds change, but it only takes one swing away from your viewpoint to understand how important they are.
- ajsnigrutin 6y ago
  Like having a police officer watch you shower, jerk off, and eat pizza in your underwear every day, in your own home, while you have no drugs there, but they think you do?
- tonyarkles 6y ago
  Let’s start with the same scenario: cameras are placed inside a home to try to catch you packing drugs except... it turns out you’re not a drug dealer. So they wait, and wait, and the whole time record everything going on in your house. Your arguments with your wife, your “romantic time”, the ridiculous things your kids say. Doesn’t that feel like a huge violation of your privacy?
gruez 6y ago
>>In your hypothetical scenario, the system would be working as intended according to many people, because the drug dealer would have otherwise gotten away with illegal activity that those people perceive as harmful. >But the end does not justify the means, due to the fact that it is a violation of their 4th Amendment specifically the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. You're greatly underestimating how many people who unironically oppose due process and civil rights because it "helps the bad guys", they themselves "don't have anything to hide", and "if you're being investigated, you probably did something wrong".
- outworlder 6y ago
  > "if you're being investigated, you probably did something wrong". Yeah, like being born a Jew in Germany a little over a century ago. The meaning of "something wrong" can change over time.

by kls 6y ago

dllthomas 6y ago

All of that is true, and nonetheless the parent comment stands: it will be rhetorically more convincing if you show how this negatively impacts the law-abiding.

kls 6y ago
While it may be move convincing, the hope is for people to see that these rights exist for a reason and that even in the presence of mortal outrage, they should still be defended. Because someone out there, is morally outraged at the way you live your life and would make something illegal that you do if they could. That is the whole point of the bill of rights and the amendments. Is to guarantee a base level of freedom no matter how the winds change. I don't understand why that is so hard for people to get. Maybe it's because I am older and boy have I seen the winds change, but it only takes one swing away from your viewpoint to understand how important they are.
ajsnigrutin 6y ago
Like having a police officer watch you shower, jerk off, and eat pizza in your underwear every day, in your own home, while you have no drugs there, but they think you do?
tonyarkles 6y ago
Let’s start with the same scenario: cameras are placed inside a home to try to catch you packing drugs except... it turns out you’re not a drug dealer. So they wait, and wait, and the whole time record everything going on in your house. Your arguments with your wife, your “romantic time”, the ridiculous things your kids say. Doesn’t that feel like a huge violation of your privacy?

gruez 6y ago

>>In your hypothetical scenario, the system would be working as intended according to many people, because the drug dealer would have otherwise gotten away with illegal activity that those people perceive as harmful. >But the end does not justify the means, due to the fact that it is a violation of their 4th Amendment specifically the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. You're greatly underestimating how many people who unironically oppose due process and civil rights because it "helps the bad guys", they themselves "don't have anything to hide", and "if you're being investigated, you probably did something wrong".

outworlder 6y ago
> "if you're being investigated, you probably did something wrong". Yeah, like being born a Jew in Germany a little over a century ago. The meaning of "something wrong" can change over time.