On 17 Aug 2004 19:09:26 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:

Leon writes:

Which IMHO is part of the problem. Ir law breakers had the fear of being
punished, they may not break so many laws. If some one is seen stealing, he
is not a suspect in the eyes of most people, he is truely guilty of
stealing. But, unfortunately, the liberal laws protect the criminal.
Again, don't let the criminal **** on your shoe and tell you is raining.

Oh, bull****. What you are recommending is basically vigilante justice, with
the cops doing all the deciding of who is and isn't guilty.

Given, our legal system is in need of repair. Given, too many people get away
with too much. Given, something has to be done. Not given: cops with the right
to do as the damned well please on any or no evidence at all.

If we could be absolutely sure ever cop, especially rent-a-cops though, had
perfect judgment, then quite possibly allowing them to manhandle prisoners, or
about-to-be prisoners, might be justified. Unfortunately, no one has perfect
judgment, and double unfortunately, the Consitution gives us particular rights
around arrest and incarceration.


nothing unfortunate about that. those laws came into being for very
specific and valid reasons, reasons that remain present.





Law breakers should have the fear of the law drummed into them. But I don't
want clerks in stores decided that I shoved something in my pocket because they
didn't see me put it back on the shelf. Or, rather, I don't want them following
me out of the store and jumping on me, or anyone else, over such things. I'm
too old and fat to retaliate as I once might have, but I could sure as hell
remove some teeth and part of an ear, maybe all of it, before going down.

And then call the lawyers.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary