One often and overused strategy among law enforcement officers is their manipulation of the uninformed, asking them to give up their rights in a tone that usually sounds like a police order. Unfortunately, upon the denial of such a request, your situation often becomes subject to microscopic police scrutiny. Should you politely agree to give up your rights, that cooperative kindness you generously offered won't be returned should they discover the slightest infraction.
Why should Boston be any exception:
Boston police are launching a program that will call upon parents in high-crime neighborhoods to allow detectives into their homes, without a warrant, to search for guns in their children's bedrooms.This is almost more damning of the parents, who I guess, would rather the police parent their teenager. But it's all ok, according to the police commissioner, who promised no criminal charges:
more stories like this
The program, which is already raising questions about civil liberties, is based on the premise that parents are so fearful of gun violence and the possibility that their own teenagers will be caught up in it that they will turn to police for help, even in their own households.
"This isn't evidence that we're going to present in a criminal case," said Davis, who met with community leaders yesterday to get feedback on the program. "This is a seizing of a very dangerous object..."Of course it's not going to end up in a criminal charge, today. But now they'll know every house where people refused a search, every house that had a gun, the contents of every searched room, every house that was not to their liking, and the faces that belonged to such houses. This is a gold mine for over-zealous law enforcement officers. To me, this program sounds more like intelligence gathering than community service.
If you like it, link it | 4 Comments:
Sounds like a way to get their foot in the door to start searching people at will; in a couple of years what will the authorities want to do?
Eh, I don't know. If the search was for "drugs" rather than "guns," we'd have every liberal crying foul and such a proposal wouldn't get very far at all. I think many liberals realize this, and so I don't see a "searches for the common good" policy however they circumvent the 4th amendment, coming down the pike.
On principle, we've got liberals and conservatives behind us, we just have to show it to them.
I've noticed that most liberals tend to cherry-pick the Bill of Rights quite easily; I have no problem picturing them as saying "But guns are different from drugs; their only purpose is to kill people". Notice how freedom of speech is an individual right with them, but the RTKB arms is a "collective" right.
I think you're right to an extent, there's quite a few ends-justify-the-means type, I just don't know how many. Maybe I'm just thinking wishfully.
Post a Comment