Re: Police & military access (fwd)

[Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>]

Forwarded message:

> Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 15:12:54 -0700
> From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
> Subject: Re: Police & military access

> >This would seem to support Jim Choate's general position. (Though I have my
> >own skepticism that many jurisdictions think it is true.)
> 
> Jim Choate's messages about cops and "civil rights" suggest that he's not
> familiar with and/or interested in the basics of legal research.
> Restrictions (and lack of restrictions) related to use of force, power to
> arest, possession/use of weapons, etc., are mostly statutory. You can't
> find them (or understand them) by starting with only the Constitution, and
> then reasoning and deducing things from it.

Absolutely, but those statutes MUST be referencable back to the
Constitution. Something I freely admit is not the current case. If it were
the current case this would be a very quite mailing list indeed.

What a citizen can and can't do with a weapon is covered in the 2nd. It 
includes police. If I as a citizen can't have object x then a police officer
can't have it, constitutionaly.

> >From a moral or political perspective, (e.g., what *should* the
> relationship between cops and citizens look like) what he writes is
> perfectly reasonable. From a legal perspective (what is the law today?)
> it's incomplete and thereby misleading. 

Absolutely, and if you are infering that I at any time in my life have EVER
asserted that my speculation was the case then you need to take a reading
comprehension course (as well as reflect on what the entire discussion on
cypherpunks truly is at the core).

What *should* be the case is the whole damn point.


                                                     Jim Choate
                                                     CyberTects
                                                     ravage@ssz.com