[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Warrantless searches- sorry to bring this back....
On Sun, 24 Apr 1994 [email protected] wrote:
> The cops aren't unwilling to go in there, it's just not safe. Period.
> Think about it. The cops have a .38 or a 9mm if they are lucky. Some of
> them may even have bullet-proof vests to wear. Some of the smarter cops have
> been able to find two bp vests to wear on patrol.
> So, they're cruising along, when a call goes out. One of the CHA
> buildings has a sniper on the roof. If they go anywhere near that building,
> he'll take they're heads right off.
> Or maybe the call is to make a bust on some drug-dealer. The dealers
> usually have someone listening to the police frequencies on a scanner, so that
> when the cops show up, they'll have a big surprise waiting. In the form of
> assualt shotguns, semi- and fully-automatic machine guns (the Mac-10 and Uzi
> are quite popular with druggies and gang's these days).
> And what kind of bullets are the bad guys using? Not what the cops get
> to use. Oh-no! The baddies have the "Cop-Killer" bullets: armor piercing,
> Teflon coated bullets that two bp vests WILL NOT stop.
I was sympathetic to your argument up to this point. Now I need a polite way
to say "You haven't a clue as to what you're talking about.". These magic,
vest-penetrating, Teflon coated bullets are on of the gun-controllers
favorite myths. But they don't exist in this reality.
That's not to say the cops don't have a problem. Pretty much any rifle
will penetrate a standard vest. But then, very few of the druggies in
real life have rifles.
> Alternatively, the baddies could just pump the cop car full of lead.
> After all, a cop won't do much if he's busy bleeding to death from his knees,
> or if some "gangsta" shot his foot off.
>
> Think about it. The cops are out-gunned and out-manned. What would you
> do? And don't tell me that you would just go in there. I consider myself pretty
> brave, but I don't think even for a second that I would be able to even
> consider going in there, not without a nice, warm, cozy M1 Abrams Tank
> surrounding me. And even then I wouldn't be truly safe.
> These cops are doing the best that they can, and everyone in the U.S.
> are worrying more about the "rights" of these gang-bangers and drug-dealers
> than they are about the rights of the innocent people that are trapped in these
> buildings.
> And don't even start to tell me that the "innocents" can just leave,
> cos these CHA buildings are the only place they can afford to live.
> You folks are to busy yelling about the illegal searches to even think
> of coming up with an alternative.
>
> Maybe if you spent a little time thinking about what it's like to live
> in a place like this, you might shut up about the cops not doing their jobs.
>
> Adam Gerstein
>
> ------
> Comments to [email protected]
> Flames to /dev/null
>
> FIGHT CLIPPER -=- OPPOSE CLIPPER -=- FIGHT CLIPPER -=- OPPOSE CLIPPER -=-
>
Reading your last few paragraphs and then you tagline causes a real
cognitive dissonance. Clipper is intended to make it easier for the
police to catch criminals, and I have yet to hear a serious argument that
it won't do that. All of the arguments are that it infringes on the
legitimate rights of non-criminals.
So here you are, perfectly willing to toss out rights that ARE enumerated
in the Constitution in the 2nd and 4th Amendments, yet trying to defend a
much more nebulous "right to privacy"
Since you've so well defended the principle that the individual's rights
are subordinate to the rights of the "innocent people" to be "safe", what
rational basis do you have for opposing Clipper?
Sorry, the Constitution isn't a cafeteria. You can't pick and choose the
rights you like and trash the rest.
++PLS