5 ms·

This is no different from being arrested, is it? You can be arrested for probable cause, i.e. if the police think you committed a crime, even if you committed n

by geofft 6y ago

This is no different from being arrested, is it? You can be arrested for probable cause, i.e. if the police think you committed a crime, even if you committed no crime. You can have your day in court later if you're innocent, but you certainly can't fight or try to escape. Unless you think it's also bad that the police can detain people who haven't committed a crime / should allow people being arrested to fight back and escape?

rglover 6y ago
That's the exact problem. That makes this worse, not better. It means no personal autonomy over your health and sets the precedent for far worse things. That's always the point with stuff like this, the precedent, not the surface-level idea.
- Spooky23 6y ago
  So what’s the personal consequence for your irresponsible exercise of autonomy? Perhaps the state should sue and seize your property to pay for the healthcare needs of folks infected by you.
  - rglover 6y ago
    If I get sick and die, I get sick and die. People who are concerned about getting sick or dying, then, should take more caution (staying home, wearing PPE, etc). That standard has always existed. Up until 2020, there was always the chance that you would catch some virus, bacterial infection, etc. The rebuttal that's always applied to this is that "so you don't care about people, then?" which is not the point. Personally, I can and should be legally able to take whatever precautions I think are necessary without any interference or looming punishment from the government. I'd much rather this sort of thing be policed socially amongst individuals as opposed to giving carte blanche to government to lock people up.
    - Spooky23 6y ago
      Sounds great, as long as I can recover my losses resulting from your irresponsibility. Freedom isn’t free, dude. As executor of a COVID victim’s estate, if I can trace the infection to your idiocy, I want a lien on your house to meet the obligations of your victim.
      - rglover 6y ago
        Can I recover my losses if the countermeasures destroy my business?
        u801e 6y ago
        > Can I recover my losses if the countermeasures destroy my business? Do you place more importance on the health of your business over others' lives?
        rglover 6y ago
        Yes, if the health of that business supports the health of my life, which for many is true (I'm fortunate to work online so am not directly affected). That line of argumentation is just emotional manipulation disguised as moral superiority. A lot of people will die or be placed in the crosshairs of death indirectly because of unemployment. The same can be said about the people who can't get treatment for non-COVID related illnesses due to hospital restrictions.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - u801e 6y ago
      > I can and should be legally able to take whatever precautions I think are necessary A significant portion of the population isn't capable of making that judgment. > I'd much rather this sort of thing be policed socially amongst individuals There's a significant risk of becoming a victim of aggravated assault when you confront individuals or groups who insist on flaunting guidelines. Even if not, staying in close proximity to them while trying to get them to follow the guidelines increases your own risk of getting infected.
- geofft 6y ago
  Again - to be clear - you're saying that people should be able to legally resist arrest because it would otherwise set a precedent for further government intrusions on liberty?
  - rglover 6y ago
    No, I'm saying that the proposed legislation in its current form is dangerous. This isn't just some temporary mandate, they're looking to make this law.
dahfizz 6y ago
> This is no different from being arrested, is it? This is very different. For example, you cannot be held for more than 48 hours without being charged. This skips over the arrest, the fair trial, and the rule of law and goes directly to imprisonment for an arbitrary length of time.
sokoloff 6y ago
Probable cause under the law is more strict than “the police think”. Even the significantly lower standard of reasonable suspicion is slightly more than “the police think” and yet is not enough to make an arrest.
- Spooky23 6y ago
  In my state, if you are driving a car, display signs of alcohol intoxication and refuse to submit to a test, you will be taken into custody, have a blood test administered and driving privileges revoked. Same story, tested in court 1000x.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    Sure. That is articulable probable cause, namely that you displayed signs X, Y, and Z of alcohol intoxication while driving. That's more than "a cops thinks", but rather that a cop can articulate specific evidence to suggest it's the case.
    - Spooky23 6y ago
      You can observe and articulate specific evidence to suggest that an individual is infected with COVID-19, or that they were in a situation where exposure makes infection probable.
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        Great. So make the law that people who have had high probability exposure must self-quarantine and make it an arrestable offense to be both subject to and breaking of a mandatory self-quarantine. I don't mind that being an arrestable offense. I do mind "I don't like the how Spooky23 looks today and they were out in public in a high-risk area, so lock them up!" "I don't like Spooky23 so I'm going to force them to stay in their house or a place of their choosing" has less potential for abuse.
        6y ago

by geofft 6y ago

rglover 6y ago

That's the exact problem. That makes this worse, not better. It means no personal autonomy over your health and sets the precedent for far worse things. That's always the point with stuff like this, the precedent, not the surface-level idea.

Spooky23 6y ago
So what’s the personal consequence for your irresponsible exercise of autonomy? Perhaps the state should sue and seize your property to pay for the healthcare needs of folks infected by you.
- rglover 6y ago
  If I get sick and die, I get sick and die. People who are concerned about getting sick or dying, then, should take more caution (staying home, wearing PPE, etc). That standard has always existed. Up until 2020, there was always the chance that you would catch some virus, bacterial infection, etc. The rebuttal that's always applied to this is that "so you don't care about people, then?" which is not the point. Personally, I can and should be legally able to take whatever precautions I think are necessary without any interference or looming punishment from the government. I'd much rather this sort of thing be policed socially amongst individuals as opposed to giving carte blanche to government to lock people up.
  - Spooky23 6y ago
    Sounds great, as long as I can recover my losses resulting from your irresponsibility. Freedom isn’t free, dude. As executor of a COVID victim’s estate, if I can trace the infection to your idiocy, I want a lien on your house to meet the obligations of your victim.
    - rglover 6y ago
      Can I recover my losses if the countermeasures destroy my business?
      - u801e 6y ago
        > Can I recover my losses if the countermeasures destroy my business? Do you place more importance on the health of your business over others' lives?
        rglover 6y ago
        Yes, if the health of that business supports the health of my life, which for many is true (I'm fortunate to work online so am not directly affected). That line of argumentation is just emotional manipulation disguised as moral superiority. A lot of people will die or be placed in the crosshairs of death indirectly because of unemployment. The same can be said about the people who can't get treatment for non-COVID related illnesses due to hospital restrictions.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - u801e 6y ago
    > I can and should be legally able to take whatever precautions I think are necessary A significant portion of the population isn't capable of making that judgment. > I'd much rather this sort of thing be policed socially amongst individuals There's a significant risk of becoming a victim of aggravated assault when you confront individuals or groups who insist on flaunting guidelines. Even if not, staying in close proximity to them while trying to get them to follow the guidelines increases your own risk of getting infected.
geofft 6y ago
Again - to be clear - you're saying that people should be able to legally resist arrest because it would otherwise set a precedent for further government intrusions on liberty?
- rglover 6y ago
  No, I'm saying that the proposed legislation in its current form is dangerous. This isn't just some temporary mandate, they're looking to make this law.

dahfizz 6y ago

> This is no different from being arrested, is it? This is very different. For example, you cannot be held for more than 48 hours without being charged. This skips over the arrest, the fair trial, and the rule of law and goes directly to imprisonment for an arbitrary length of time.

sokoloff 6y ago

Probable cause under the law is more strict than “the police think”. Even the significantly lower standard of reasonable suspicion is slightly more than “the police think” and yet is not enough to make an arrest.

Spooky23 6y ago
In my state, if you are driving a car, display signs of alcohol intoxication and refuse to submit to a test, you will be taken into custody, have a blood test administered and driving privileges revoked. Same story, tested in court 1000x.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  Sure. That is articulable probable cause, namely that you displayed signs X, Y, and Z of alcohol intoxication while driving. That's more than "a cops thinks", but rather that a cop can articulate specific evidence to suggest it's the case.
  - Spooky23 6y ago
    You can observe and articulate specific evidence to suggest that an individual is infected with COVID-19, or that they were in a situation where exposure makes infection probable.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      Great. So make the law that people who have had high probability exposure must self-quarantine and make it an arrestable offense to be both subject to and breaking of a mandatory self-quarantine. I don't mind that being an arrestable offense. I do mind "I don't like the how Spooky23 looks today and they were out in public in a high-risk area, so lock them up!" "I don't like Spooky23 so I'm going to force them to stay in their house or a place of their choosing" has less potential for abuse.
      - 6y ago