I hear you but intentionally putting information online is just a small fraction of the information available to Big Brother. Short of dropping off the grid and living in a cave in Antarctica(without internet) there is no way to avoid Big Brother.Quote by: Dieval
Religion is poison because it asks us to give up our most precious faculty, which is that of reason, and to believe things without evidence. It then asks us to respect this, which it calls faith. - Christopher Hitchens
So forgo your right to liberty and happiness to not have your civil rights stomped on?
We cannot take the actions of corrupt or incompetent police officers and use them as evidence of us becoming a police state.
Are we living in a police state when an officer pulls you over for no reason and searches your car without your consent? If the officer is following protocol and just doing his job then the answer is yes. If the officer is breaking the law in any way then the answer is no.
So if you are speeding, pulled over for speeding, asked if your car may be searched, and have your car searched after you agree how is that living in a police state? A cop doing his job is not going to create additional work for no reason. The cop is either breaking the law or incredibly stupid--neither case is evidence of a police state.
Here's a more likely scenario:
You are pulled over for speeding. While the cop is giving you a ticket he notices what appears to be the butt of a (fill in some illegal weapon) sticking out from under the seat. What he sees is actually the butt of your kid's paintball gun--which you tell him. The cop asks to see it and--because you don't support police states--you say no. So where do we go from here? Does the cop take you on your word and just let it go? Criminals aren't known for being truthful. What happens when he won't take your word and then proceeds to his the next legal step? Will you wind up in jail or court? Or are you just inconvenienced while another error-prone human sets up and then steps in a giant, steaming pile of "oops." This scenario only exists when one guy is doing his job and the other guy is being a dick.
Cops sometimes abuse their power. Cops sometimes break the law. A cop can do all sorts of things that are exactly like a police state. But they can't do it legally.
"It seems foolhardy, redolent of danger, and doomed to failure. Otherwise, I can find no fault with it." --Dickens (Nicholas Nickleby)
I agree.
Well it is a bit fuzzier here. If he is following protocol and breaking the law then it can be a police state. Many laws are ignored or if people are to scared to press for their rights then it certainly could be.
Police are trained to lie to get people to admit to things. Often these tactics produce evidence that is bounced from court for constitutional reasons, but as some of them make it - why not. The courts support their lying, but let me tell you .
As far as understand if you consent to the search it is perfectly legal, but is very scary if you are an innocent person being interrogated and you assume that police are to be trusted. They can ask loaded and other trick questions to get you to admit to things you have not even done.
That is one scenario and in that scenario he has probable cause and should not need a warrant. He would likely ask him to get out of the car in that case. He should not be arrested as he did nothing wrong unless it was a gun or he lied about something.
My one issue was with a "gun". A "gun" that wasn't. I was charged well after the fact they knew it was not a gun. I was charged after cooperating fully with them. I was charged without them having any reason to assume I had any dangerous intent in mind. The charge was dropped as the first action in my trial because there was no change of it going anywhere. This had been known in the judicial pretrial meeting it was obvious the charge was going no where. In fact all the details of this came out in my bail hearing. I am not saying this is evidence of a police state, just of how police operate. The charge was laid to increase the odds of me plea bargaining. The other charge was beat, but being open and honest.
Again it is not a matter of doing it legally. I suggest that in many police states many laws are broken by the police and when people try to fight back bad things happen and so most people don't.
...but ASKING to search your car isn't a violation of your rights...searching your car for no reason would be.
What I'm saying is that being asked to search your vehicle is not a violation of your rights.. and if you have nothing to hide, standing up (and being an a**hole) for your rights that aren't being violated is pointless.
"Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives." | "Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them." - RR
Quote removed because someone got their feelings hurt. (boo hoo)
But you can avoid a LOT of information out there just by being careful with what you do.
If you're concerned about keeping your life private than keep your business offline and out of the public spotlight. Don't think that tweeting about how just bought new underwear, is some how private... Yeah, I know I'm taking it a little further, but so many people do so much online and expect it to be private...it's not.
"Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives." | "Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them." - RR
Quote removed because someone got their feelings hurt. (boo hoo)
What do you think happens more often; a cop, for whatever reason, coerces an innocent person to admit to crimes they did not commit, or a cop who knows someone is guilty but, due to technicality and personal rights, is unable to do anything about it?
The tactics they use in interrogation are not aimed at getting innocent people to admit to crimes--in most cases that's just an unfortunate byproduct of the search for the truth. Even the most trusting citizens have certainly seen some of the Law and Order and cop shows on TV and know what could potentially happen if they find themselves on the wrong side of evidence the police claim to have. Interrogation is meant to be rigorous. It's meant to break people down and trip them up. Innocent people are interrogated all the time but an innocent person becoming so confused by the process that they confess to a crime they didn't commit is certainly a rarity. What alternatives do we have? Should the police not be allowed to interrogate? Should they not be allowed to ask any questions for fear an innocent person may become confused? Should they always wait until a lawyer is present? While cops may become overzealous in their search for the truth, or rarely manufacture truth for some other reason, lawyers are paid to actively obfuscate the truth. So do we take interrogation and its rare abuses and unintended side effects or do we abandon it and let convictions depend entirely on the defense attorney's ability to pick apart the physical evidence?
If you are being interrogated I don't think trust has anything to do with accidentally confessing to a crime you didn't commit.As far as understand if you consent to the search it is perfectly legal, but is very scary if you are an innocent person being interrogated and you assume that police are to be trusted. They can ask loaded and other trick questions to get you to admit to things you have not even done.
I'm unclear as to the details of what happened to you or how police began investigation but it appears to be more complicated than being pulled over for speeding with a paintball gun in the back seat. Were you attempting to board a plane with a disabled gun and an underage girl and were questioned for having what they thought was a functional gun go through the scanner? I could see how that may be misconstrued.My one issue was with a "gun". A "gun" that wasn't. I was charged well after the fact they knew it was not a gun. I was charged after cooperating fully with them. I was charged without them having any reason to assume I had any dangerous intent in mind. The charge was dropped as the first action in my trial because there was no change of it going anywhere. This had been known in the judicial pretrial meeting it was obvious the charge was going no where. In fact all the details of this came out in my bail hearing. I am not saying this is evidence of a police state, just of how police operate. The charge was laid to increase the odds of me plea bargaining. The other charge was beat, but being open and honest.
Unfortunately the criminals are doing all they can to not go to jail, the cops are doing all they can (sometimes more than they can) to solve crimes, and some innocent people buckle under pressure. How do you propose the system be changed?Again it is not a matter of doing it legally. I suggest that in many police states many laws are broken by the police and when people try to fight back bad things happen and so most people don't.
To me a "police state" implies some sort of ultimate motivation--thwarting political opponents, genocide, etc. Cops mistakenly thinking you did something and then pressing you both legally and illegally to confess is just too individual to fit the police state bill.
"It seems foolhardy, redolent of danger, and doomed to failure. Otherwise, I can find no fault with it." --Dickens (Nicholas Nickleby)
But couldn't that eb wishful thinking on your part?
That's why I think the topic at hand must be discussed.
Last night I watched something on a guy who was cleared by DNA. He had been on death row and everything. What was used to put him away? His teeth were said to match a bite on a victim.
In other words, it's not like no one will serve any time over flimsy evidence. The question of whether they had sufficient protection is important. Suspects do have a right to defend themselves in their cases, and it seems like this basic concept is considered radical nowadays.
Justice costs well over $9.95.
Grandpa h.
Post by post, building his arguments by smashing a couple of theirs -- for America.
I suggest you are missing the point.
First off, cops don't know anyone is guilty unless they have direct evidence including their own testimony which is held in high regard by courts.
Second it is not "coerces an innocent person to admit to crimes they did not commit" it is
that they are not seeking the truth in any case. It is rarely coercion it is trickery. If one obtains evidence by trickery of this sort it is often not moving towards the truth.
It is a horrific process that is just part of the process that is often characterized as innocent until proven guilty. As someone who went through it, it is not the case what so ever. I was innocent. I still was fired, I was put through much humiliation, I was put in a situation of having to choose between helping a loved one or breaching bail, I put under massive stress over a period of two years and the effects destroyed a relationship, a career and did more damage that I could imagine.
I have been there. I never said confessing - It is not about confessing things you did, but that does occur albeit rarely. It is the little things you say, that may be taken to mean something very different in court. It is like the tricks some employ in a debate or argument to trip their opponent up to say something they can use against them even if it is not what they meant.
I put forth the police should not be able to lie or use trickery. Most "criminals" are used to this and simply don't talk. It is the innocent who suffer the most.
Of course it does. You trust the police are on your side if you are innocent. The truth is, if they think you are guilty (or as you put it, know you are) they will use their bag of tricks on you. The officer who interrogated me kept at being my friend and only wanting to help and yet he would always end at statements or questions that were loaded to trick me to saying something they can use in court. I was cold, tired, depressed (medically), anxious and scared.
If by under aged you mean below the age of consent - she was not. The "gun" was found after we were moved to secondary screening and was clearly explained. It was clearly explained with witnesses at my bail hearing as well.
I certainly understand being questioned as well. And we answered everyhting openly and honestly. The Police knew the details on arrival and asked nothing. They just arrested me.
I suggest police procedure be changed. The process is stressful and in the case of a proficient lawyer in most cases the evidence is often inadmissible in court. My partner for example was questioned "voluntarily" after she refused over and over. She was questioned even though it was unconstitutional for them to do so. She was detained to do this even though she refused that request. She was recorded as the complainant even though she didn't complain. The actions of the police in this case caused her to be kicked out of her home. The justice system did far more harm than good.
I agree to a point. Thinking I did something wrong should not be enough to begin this. Beginning an investigation yes. There was no indication that anything harmful was going on and certainly by charging me harm was done to the so called victim of the crime.
I think it is more just how easy it is to slide there. I believe a police state can simply be to keep order by violating rights as a matter of procedure. A police state to me is about instilling fear in people.
Becoming? We have been for a while, IMO: especially with regular police departments buying gear that should be used for war, and the decision the the 4th Amendment (amongst many) is useless and should be tossed aside.
Where's the Supreme Court on this? I'm curious. Because pols profit from making us scared shitless of terrorism I suspect it will only get worse. They'll keep widening the definition to anyone who dares to want their grievances to be addressed and does what it takes these days to have those grievances addressed.
I fear we will find no comfort in either a Democratic, or a Republican, administration in this regard. The targets may simply switch. I'm waiting for Pro-Life protesters and Teabaggers to be targeted. I think that may be what it would take to wake both sides up. As long as we have this "as long as you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about" mentality, combined with partisan BS that considers anyone who dares to disagree with their side a "traitor" or a potential "terrorist" it will only get worse.
They are using our own animosity towards each other against us.
Huh? Wassat U say?and still I was at times said I blamed her.
And, if Canada is anything like the States, I'm sure what you went through was hideously expensive. Over a decade ago I too was charged with something I didn't do. Ironically I found justice had nothing to do with it. They didn't even care if I was guilty or not. Everyone wanted to be paid off.
A system that makes money off of charging them, and incarcerating them: especially commercial prison operations, is ripe for corruption of the worst kind, and tends to not care about innocence or guilt.
It also becomes powerful fertilizer for a police state.
Sorry grammar was a bit off. When I said it was consensual they said I was blaming her.
I can understand why you would say that. I sent a lot of money yes, even though I was supposedly innocent until proven guilty. The problem with that is of course if you are not ready to defend yourself you will be found guilty.
In Canada our prisons are not privately operated, but I am not sure it effects the cops. I worked with Cops for many years and they do care about innocence or guilt in a general sense, but then again that is why the courts are there. Generally once they think you are guilty in their eyes you are. If something seems to go against that well that is legally trickery that they need to counter with their own. Innocent people get screwed all around.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks