Law enforcement can be a difficult a hard job. There is no getting around that fact. The reason it is hard is that the issues are complex. This is just one reason why law enforcement agencies tend to be so selective and screen so thoroughly those they hire, before they are hired. A good cop tends to actually be more open-minded than your average citizen. Why? Because if he or she is not open-minded, then he or she would find it much more difficult to deal fairly with people whose lifestyles they might not personally endorse. For instance........When I am watching an episode of "Cops" for instance, and I see an experienced male officer treat an aging drag queen who is the victim of domestic abuse with the same deference as he would if that person were his own grandmother, then I am encouraged. I am encouraged because that officer is able to see past his own prejudices to see the humanity of the other person, and to treat that other person with dignity and respect, even if he might not personally endorse that person's life choices. THAT cop is not the one whom I worry about with regard to issues like Terry stops. That cop understands that he or she has been entrusted with serving and protecting the citizenry, of which he or she understands themselves to be a part. The cop that worries me with regard to Terry stops is the cop who comes to believe that being a cop sets him apart from the citizenry, and therefore not subject to the same standards as the rest of us.pcgizzmo wrote:I never said they were allowed to. I said I would probably profile. We all know it happens and if we were honest I believe most people if they were law enforcement would profile regardless if they were allowed to or legality. We are all guility of it in every day life. That person that doesn't dress just right, talk just right, look the way we would think a responsible citizen would look etc.. We make judgements and we are lying to ourselves we don't think law enforement does it on a regular basis. Since 9/11 I've been standing next to people that had turibns on and women with head coverings and I'll just be honest it makes me nervous. Not because they are bad people. Rationally I know that statistically they are probably not BUT because of the war on terror, my reading of media reports etc.. it's changed my view on things and while that may not be right its the way it is..
Now extrapolate that to people that deal with scum on a daily basis and I don't necessarily agree with it but I understand it. Not to mention I believe their are statistics that profiling in certain situations has a fairly high hit rate. On one had we want to get rid of crime, scum, drugs etc.. but on the other we don't want to be questioned, profiled, searched, etc.. I get it. I don't know what the answer is. How to give law enforment enough leeway to get the bad guy while still protecting the rights of good citizens?
Jim and I often find ourselves on opposite sides of some issues, but he is wise and kind, and this is very good advice. As a nation, it seems to me like we have been far less likely to defend our rights with vigor, and far more likely to acquiesce to violations of the same for the past 50 years or so than ever before in our history. I could write an extended essay on why I think this is so, but that's food for another topic. Let's just take it as a given for the moment. As we know from losses of the right to keep and bear arms, these violations become incrementally institutionalized in the law, and incrementally applied against those of us who would seek to exercise those rights. And thus, we must today have a license to carry that which the Constitution guarantees to be free against infringement. Equally so, the victories to reverse those losses come incrementally and drag out over the years.b322da wrote:Most respectfully, this is a prime example of how an innocent person can cause himself untold suffering. A similar example would be, "What is the harm in responding to law enforcement interrogation if you don't have anything to hide?" Time and again we have seen on this forum, for example, how one should generally keep his mouth shut if interrogated by law enforcement after he legally exercises his right of self-defense against an aggressor. The reasons for that advice should be known by all members here.pcgizzmo wrote:Honestly I don't see the problem of allowing law enforcement to search your car... What is the harm in letting a law enforcement officer search your car if you don't have anything to hide?
The Bill of Rights applies to everyone, not just those who have something to hide. Acquiescing in the transgression of one's right under the Constitution will lead inexorably to the end of that right.
Jim
Ever since technology has enabled law enforcement to access previously private communications (telephone wiretaps, for instance), we have been in a battle against the incremental dismantling of the 4th Amendment's wall of protection. At least, that is my thesis. Jim is one or two years older than I am (
) and I would be curious to know if his observations parallel mine. I acknowledge that this is in part because criminals have sought to use those same technologies to both increase their own "productivity" and to defend themselves against law enforcement's intrusions into their affairs. The fallout out though is that the rest of us who are law-abiding end up being negatively affected in our own transactions with law enforcement. It is also part of my thesis that as the law-abiding increasingly feel these incremental violations of their rights by law enforcement, the relationship between the law-abiding and law enforcement becomes increasingly adversarial. And that is bad for an orderly society.