Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> What you are proposing
> >> - is not effective
> > 
> >   What do you suggest which would be more effective?
> > 
> >> - will violate rights of legal citizens
> > 
> >   Wait, exactly what am I proposing here that would "violate rights of
> > legal citizens"?

> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

  That didn't answer the question I asked. I didn't ask "how/why would it
violate the rights of legal citizens?"

  He talked about what *I* am proposing. I'm not proposing anything.
Seemingly what he (and you) meant is what the new Arizona state law is
proposing.

  I haven't read the letter of that law proposal (I would have to read it
carefully before forming an opinion; it wouldn't be the first time that
hypersensitive people exaggerate new law proposals), but if what has been
written here is the truth, then I'm not advocating that kind of law.

  What I *am* opposing is the idea that countries should enforce their
laws more leniently to avoid offending people. (Sure, sometimes enforcing
them more strictly regardless of how hypersensitive people might get
offended may cause unrest and riots, but then it's basically a lose-lose
situation. Everybody loses, nobody wins. Tough luck. Humans are bastards,
and sucks being human.)

> >   Well, I suppose it could. It's basically a lose-lose situation. You can't
> > win. Either you get many criminals go free which would otherwise be caught
> > of more efficient measures were taken, or you anger people.

> Nobody is against catching the criminals.

  Of course they aren't against that. But at the same time they oppose
stricter measures which could rise the conviction rates of the criminals,
if doing so would offend some people. In other words, they want to eat the
cake and keep it too.

> >> For these and a number of other reasons legislators all over the world 
> >> have decided it is not a good idea and made it illegal.
> > 
> >   Make what illegal, exactly?

> Randomly stopping people and asking them to prove their innocence.

  Apparently Britain is not one of those countries? Or have they already
lifted their random security checks at metro stations and other places?

> Consider driving. Do you want police randomly pulling you over because you 
> have long hair, or you're driving a red car? After all, a majority of 
> traffic tickets go to people in red cars.

  I wouldn't be surprised if the police was more likely to stop SUV's than
eg. trucks for random sobriety tests, purely because of statistical reasons.
(No, I don't know if they do, but I wouldn't be surprised if the did.)

  If truck drivers are statistically significantly less likely to drive
while drunk, that kind of selectiveness makes sense. Don't tell me it
doesn't.

> No. You want the cop to wait until he sees you do something wrong before he 
> stops you, yes?

  Cops don't need probable cause to stop cars for a sobriety test, and
personally I really don't mind.

>  You don't want him stopping you just because you drive a 
> particular color car, or you're wearing a particular kind of clothing, right?

  If SUV drivers were statistically more likely to drive while drunk,
I really wouldn't mind if the police concentrated their efforts more on
SUVs than on trucks.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message