What was that about the home officer Jaybird?
Brent P
According to some in this group, especially officer Jaybird, I am simply
paranoid. However as things have come to pass I find that is becoming less.
I have posted before that the slippery slope could lead to the
viewscreens of 1984. Well, here we go... in officer Jaybird's home state
of Texas.
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/nationworld/articles/2320361.html
HOUSTON -- Houston's police chief Wednesday proposed placing surveillance
cameras in apartment complexes, downtown streets, shopping malls and even
private homes to fight crime during a shortage of police officers.
"I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response
to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry
about it?" Chief Harold Hurtt told reporters Wednesday at a regular briefing.
<...>
This is one step further than King Richard the second, mayor for life,
conquerer of Bensenville, builder of parks, destroyer of small
airports.... has. Mayor Daley wants to have police monitored cameras in
businesses.
" A newer proposal that would require cameras in thousands of businesses
has far less backing but still enjoys support from most poll participants."
Paper wall. The sliperly slope began with the vehicle and it's now moving
to businesses and the home.
N8N
Brent P wrote:
> "I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response
> to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry
> about it?" Chief Harold Hurtt told reporters Wednesday at a regular briefing.
Whenever I hear that phrase I have to restrain myself from giving the
speaker a hard cockpunch.
Seriously, were these people sleeping through high school civics class?
nate
Brent P
There was no such class at my HS, so I would have to say history class.
It's been decades of conditioning to get here. Although I think the media
always interviews and polls to make people like you and myself feel that
we are the odd ones.
The 'if you're doing nothing wrong' is probably tops on my list of
offensive phrases as well.
BernardFarquart
"Brent P" <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:JfudnVLwPb35RGTe...@comcast.com...
>
> According to some in this group, especially officer Jaybird, I am simply
> paranoid. However as things have come to pass I find that is becoming
> less.
>
> I have posted before that the slippery slope could lead to the
> viewscreens of 1984. Well, here we go... in officer Jaybird's home state
> of Texas.
>
> http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/nationworld/articles/2320361.html
>
> HOUSTON -- Houston's police chief Wednesday proposed placing surveillance
> cameras in apartment complexes, downtown streets, shopping malls and even
> private homes to fight crime during a shortage of police officers.
>
> "I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response
> to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry
> about it?" Chief Harold Hurtt told reporters Wednesday at a regular
> briefing.
>
> <...>
>
> This is one step further than King Richard the second, mayor for life,
> conquerer of Bensenville, builder of parks, destroyer of small
> airports.... has. Mayor Daley wants to have police monitored cameras in
> businesses.
Notice that the following quote, and the above quote from two seperate
stories, sound a bit similar?
The safer we make the city, the better it is for everyone," says Chicago
Alderman Ray Suarez, who first proposed mandatory cameras in some
businesses. "If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry
about?"
John C.
> paranoid. However as things have come to pass I find that is becoming less.
>
> I have posted before that the slippery slope could lead to the
> viewscreens of 1984. Well, here we go... in officer Jaybird's home state
> of Texas.
>
I think there should be a ten year "trial period", during which the only folks
subjected to surveillance would be law enforcement personnel, politicians and
insurance lobbyists.
It might just turn out to be unworkable,.. for some reason. ;)
--
John C.
necromancer
only folks
> subjected to surveillance would be law enforcement personnel, politicians and
> insurance lobbyists.
>
> It might just turn out to be unworkable,.. for some reason. ;)
Yep. I'm rather sure that Sen. Kennedy would rather not have his driving
habits monitored...
DTJ
(Brent P) wrote:
>>> "I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response
>>> to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry
>>> about it?" Chief Harold Hurtt told reporters Wednesday at a regular briefing.
>>
>> Whenever I hear that phrase I have to restrain myself from giving the
>> speaker a hard cockpunch.
>>
>> Seriously, were these people sleeping through high school civics class?
>
>There was no such class at my HS, so I would have to say history class.
>It's been decades of conditioning to get here. Although I think the media
>always interviews and polls to make people like you and myself feel that
>we are the odd ones.
How about your constitution class. You can't get past 8th grade and
high school without passing that.
As to the media, they keep running polls, changing the words, until
they get an answer that supports their liberal agenda.
"Do you support the illegal use of cameras in businesses? OK, How
about, do you support cameras in businesses that the cops monitor?
No, well how about supporting cameras in businesses if we promise to
only let little old ladies watch them? Yes."
"Polls show that everyone is in favor of cameras in businesses, which
shows that the mayor's idea is gaining favor among voters."
>The 'if you're doing nothing wrong' is probably tops on my list of
>offensive phrases as well.
People who use it should be shot.
*************************
Dave
DTJ
>> According to some in this group, especially officer Jaybird, I am simply
>> paranoid. However as things have come to pass I find that is becoming less.
>>
>> I have posted before that the slippery slope could lead to the
>> viewscreens of 1984. Well, here we go... in officer Jaybird's home state
>> of Texas.
>>
>Awesome!
>
> I think there should be a ten year "trial period", during which the only folks
>subjected to surveillance would be law enforcement personnel, politicians and
>insurance lobbyists.
>
> It might just turn out to be unworkable,.. for some reason. ;)
Don't you recall Jaybird's responses to this? Cops should not be
subject to oversight (surveillance) from citizens, because we do not
understand what it is like to be a cop. Since government is of the
people, by the people, and since our founders intended for us to
control them, not vice versa, I have to say you have a great idea. We
should begin monitoring all government activities immediately. All
conversations, communications, et cetera by any government agent
should be broadcast on the Internet in real time, with the sole
exception being any military planning or activities.
*************************
Dave
Jim Yanik
What do you think about on-board cameras in police cruisers?
IMO,they should not be able to be turned off or misaimed by the LEO,and
come on automatically for any traffic stop.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Jim Yanik
news:MPG.1e63ecda6...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:
I note that Sen.Kennedy also delayed reporting HIS accident with Mary Jo
Kopechne drowning in his auto for several hours. B-)
Alan Baker
DTJ <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Along with those who say, "If it saves one life, it's worth it"...
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Brent P
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 10:41:10 -0600, tetraethylle...@yahoo.com
> (Brent P) wrote:
> How about your constitution class. You can't get past 8th grade and
> high school without passing that.
That was part of history class.
> As to the media, they keep running polls, changing the words, until
> they get an answer that supports their liberal agenda.
Of course. Except it's not really a liberal media, but a pro democrat
media. The mainstream media supports the government taking our rights, just
clearly wants democrats in office.
Nate Nagel
> tetraethylle...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in
> news:jbqdnew0dbe...@comcast.com:
> That's really no different than if a plainclothes LEO was watching in
> person,in a public place.
> There's no expectation of privacy in a public place.
>
> Or if the surveillance is owned by a private business,like a convenience
> store(or bank ATM),and stored video only available by specific request
> after a crime has been committed?
>
you missed the part about private homes?
nate
--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
Jim Yanik
> In article <1140447924.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Tell me,what's the matter if the surveillance is of a public area?
That's really no different than if a plainclothes LEO was watching in
person,in a public place.
There's no expectation of privacy in a public place.
Or if the surveillance is owned by a private business,like a convenience
store(or bank ATM),and stored video only available by specific request
after a crime has been committed?
--
Jim Yanik
news:smkkv1t9c0sqliek1...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 10:41:10 -0600, tetraethylle...@yahoo.com
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>>> "I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my
>>>> response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why
>>>> should you worry about it?" Chief Harold Hurtt told reporters
>>>> Wednesday at a regular briefing.
>>>
>>> Whenever I hear that phrase I have to restrain myself from giving
>>> the speaker a hard cockpunch.
>>>
>>> Seriously, were these people sleeping through high school civics
>>> class?
>>
>>There was no such class at my HS, so I would have to say history
>>class. It's been decades of conditioning to get here. Although I think
>>the media always interviews and polls to make people like you and
>>myself feel that we are the odd ones.
>
> How about your constitution class. You can't get past 8th grade and
> high school without passing that.
>
> As to the media, they keep running polls, changing the words, until
> they get an answer that supports their liberal agenda.
>
> "Do you support the illegal use of cameras in businesses?
What would be the "illegal" part of this?
Their surveillance is places where "privacy" is not to be expected.
> OK, How
> about, do you support cameras in businesses that the cops monitor?
> No, well how about supporting cameras in businesses if we promise to
> only let little old ladies watch them? Yes."
>
> "Polls show that everyone is in favor of cameras in businesses, which
> shows that the mayor's idea is gaining favor among voters."
>
>>The 'if you're doing nothing wrong' is probably tops on my list of
>>offensive phrases as well.
>
> People who use it should be shot.
>
> *************************
> Dave
When I was experiencing items missing from my workbench(calculator,hot air
gun,company-owned VCR,Variac;items of some value)And other employees
mentioned they were missing items,my first suspicions were the cleaning
people.(I asked around if anyone borrowed the VCR or Variac)
The office manager dismissed my suggestion,so I installed my own hidden
camera,and taped the cleaning people opening one of my cabinet drawers and
removing an item that they placed in their garbage can.
Then I showed the office manager,who contacted the property manager
responsible for the cleaning crew,who after viewing the tape,fired the
entire crew.One cleaner attempted to challenge the firing until a copy of
the tape was made available to his lawyer.
(the office manager later admitted that SHE had money missing from her
cubicle!!)
I note that public surveillance cameras have resulted in the solution of
child abduction cases resulting in the conviction of the perp,and many
other crimes committed in public.
It's really no different than having a witness present,but unnoticed.
(a completely accurate one,too)
Brent P
> Tell me,what's the matter if the surveillance is of a public area?
> That's really no different than if a plainclothes LEO was watching in
> person,in a public place. There's no expectation of privacy in a
> public place.
This is about police monitoring private property. Aparently inside and
out. The problem with most street cameras is that they can also be aimed
to view private property and into buildings through windows where a cop
on the beat would not be able to see.
> Or if the surveillance is owned by a private business,like a convenience
> store(or bank ATM),and stored video only available by specific request
> after a crime has been committed?
If a business chooses to install a camera that is their right. It's their
property. I may install cameras in my home. After my cars were vandalized
I had a camera set up to watch them at one residence. Also said video is
the property of the owner and he can control it's viewing outside of a
warrant or similiar being issued.
But this isn't the business owners' choice under what daley proposes.
Rather it is a mandate. And it won't be the business owner in charge of
who views the images, but rather the police (government).
Brent P
> What would be the "illegal" part of this?
> Their surveillance is places where "privacy" is not to be expected.
Do you want a government monitored camera in your business establishment?
> The office manager dismissed my suggestion,so I installed my own hidden
> camera,and taped the cleaning people opening one of my cabinet drawers and
> removing an item that they placed in their garbage can.
> Then I showed the office manager,who contacted the property manager
> responsible for the cleaning crew,who after viewing the tape,fired the
> entire crew.One cleaner attempted to challenge the firing until a copy of
> the tape was made available to his lawyer.
How does your decision to monitor your area by camera relate to
mandated government monitoring of your area by camera. I don't see a
connection. You are free to monitor your property by camera, the
government is not.
> I note that public surveillance cameras have resulted in the solution of
> child abduction cases resulting in the conviction of the perp,and many
> other crimes committed in public.
This sounds like the arguement the government and cop was making, that
since it works well in public areas, let's have the government monitior
private areas as well.
That's slipperly slope at it's finest. Almost a textbook definition of
it.
Matthew Russotto
Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
>
>What do you think about on-board cameras in police cruisers?
>
>IMO,they should not be able to be turned off or misaimed by the LEO,and
>come on automatically for any traffic stop.
The records just magically turn up blank if they wouldn't have
supported the cop's story.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
jaybird
I'll have to finally agree with you. Looking at it from the rights of a
property owner and the right to privacy, I have an opinion on that (Nagel is
going to stroke out). If a camera is installed by the cops in a public
(roadway, outdoor, courtyard, open hallway, elevator, etc...) area where
there is no expectation of privacy I would agree and in some places that is
already being done. However, I don't think that the government (law
enforcement) should operate any cameras beyond that without a valid search
warrant including areas that would be intrusive if viewed from an area that
a person would not publicly have access to. If a store owner wants to
record in his store then that's up to him and he can do the monitoring. If
a home owner wants to record his yard or inside his house then the same
applies. My opinion is based on two things: First, the expectation of
privacy inside a person's property is high and shouldn't be subject to
government monitoring. Second, they are the victims of the crime and the
cops can't be the victim for them. They can gather as much evidence as they
want and provide that to the cops to help prosecute their case. They are
the ones who are filing charges, through the cops and prosecutors. As we
say: no victim, no crime.
--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.
Brent P
> I'll have to finally agree with you. Looking at it from the rights of a
> property owner and the right to privacy, I have an opinion on that (Nagel is
> going to stroke out). If a camera is installed by the cops in a public
> (roadway, outdoor, courtyard, open hallway, elevator, etc...) area where
> there is no expectation of privacy I would agree and in some places that is
> already being done. However, I don't think that the government (law
> enforcement) should operate any cameras beyond that without a valid search
> warrant including areas that would be intrusive if viewed from an area that
> a person would not publicly have access to. If a store owner wants to
> record in his store then that's up to him and he can do the monitoring. If
> a home owner wants to record his yard or inside his house then the same
> applies. My opinion is based on two things: First, the expectation of
> privacy inside a person's property is high and shouldn't be subject to
> government monitoring. Second, they are the victims of the crime and the
> cops can't be the victim for them. They can gather as much evidence as they
> want and provide that to the cops to help prosecute their case. They are
> the ones who are filing charges, through the cops and prosecutors. As we
> say: no victim, no crime.
Not the response I expected. But what if it becomes 'law' ? My guess is
King Richard the second, mayor for life will eventually get his way at
least in some small way, I dunno what the political situation in Houston
is like.
N8N
Jim Yanik wrote:
> tetraethylle...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in
> news:jbqdnew0dbe...@comcast.com:
>
> > In article <1140447924.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > N8N wrote:
> >>
> >> Brent P wrote:
> >>
> >>> "I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my
> >>> response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should
> >>> you worry about it?" Chief Harold Hurtt told reporters Wednesday at
> >>> a regular briefing.
> >>
> >> Whenever I hear that phrase I have to restrain myself from giving the
> >> speaker a hard cockpunch.
> >>
> >> Seriously, were these people sleeping through high school civics
> >> class?
> >
> > There was no such class at my HS, so I would have to say history
> > class. It's been decades of conditioning to get here. Although I think
> > the media always interviews and polls to make people like you and
> > myself feel that we are the odd ones.
> >
> > The 'if you're doing nothing wrong' is probably tops on my list of
> > offensive phrases as well.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Tell me,what's the matter if the surveillance is of a public area?
> That's really no different than if a plainclothes LEO was watching in
> person,in a public place.
> There's no expectation of privacy in a public place.
That makes me a little nervous, but that's not what I have the problem
with.
>
> Or if the surveillance is owned by a private business,like a convenience
> store(or bank ATM),and stored video only available by specific request
> after a crime has been committed?
that's fine too, but what was suggested was government-monitored
cameras not only in public locations but in private businesses and
homes as well. I have a real problem with that, and I would hope that
most others would as well.
nate
N8N
I don't have a problem with those at all; I'd add to that if anyone
contests a traffic stop or accuses the officer of some impropriety if
the cruiser is equipped with a camera and for whatever reason the video
is not available then the ticket should automatically be dismissed.
This sounds like I'm anti-cop, but really, if you think about it it
works both ways - if a cop has video of a driver changing lanes
unsafely, LLBing, not signaling, etc. the video can help the ticket
stick in court. It would quite simply make things more fair for
everyone.
nate
Jim Yanik
news:dtdmj...@news2.newsguy.com:
I guess I did.There was nothing about it in the post I was responding to.
Jim Yanik
I seem to have not caught an earlier post about gov't monitoring of private
property.
Do you have a link back to the original post or article?
BTW,did you ever read "Oath of Fealty" by Larry Niven/Jerry Pournelle?
(sci-fi)
It's about a private housing/commercial project that is totally monitored
and enforced by the project's management,including inside the apartments.
Jim Yanik
The MSM is approximately 70% Democrat,I believe.(if not more...)
These days the term "liberal" does not mean what it used to mean,it now
means "socialist".(and Democrat)
jaybird
I can't see it ever becoming a law to allow government cameras inside a
private residence. That is clearly unconstitutional if they apply it to the
standards.
jaybird
Oh, and I kinda figured you wouldn't expect that response, but I think you
should have. I've written over and over again what the expectation of
privacy and constitutional standards are. This clearly would not meet them.
N8N
But that is exactly what is being suggested here. I'm quite reassured
to see that even you have limits. I would hope that if this came up
within your jurisdiction that you would speak out against it.
nate
(I realize the above sounds somewhat harsh; I did not mean it to be so,
I'm merely pointing out that past experience has led me to believe that
your interpretations fall much farther away from the protection of
individual property and privacy rights than do those of, say, Brent.)
necromancer
>
> Oh, and I kinda figured you wouldn't expect that response, but I think you
> should have. I've written over and over again what the expectation of
> privacy and constitutional standards are. This clearly would not meet them.
Under current interpretations of the standards. Its just a matter of
time before a collective brain fart on the part of the council of 9
senile old geezers changes that. (and I can envision a time in the near
future where that comment would have you -or your colleagues- busting
down my door to take me in for re-education)
Can't you see that that's what these discussions are all about? Its
about government conditioning people to accept more and more intrusion
and conditioning people to submit to government inspection on whatever
whim that they have. It starts in the vehicle (or school) with the no
expectation of privacy in a public area ruse (with "drugs," being the
scapegoat) and escalates from there. Its only a matter of time before
government demands surveilance in our homes - probablly under some
fraudlent premise like "national security," or "war on terrorism," or
similar bogeyman.
Mike T.
>>
>> Oh, and I kinda figured you wouldn't expect that response, but I think
>> you
>> should have. I've written over and over again what the expectation of
>> privacy and constitutional standards are. This clearly would not meet
>> them.
>
> Under current interpretations of the standards. Its just a matter of
> time before a collective brain fart on the part of the council of 9
> senile old geezers changes that. (and I can envision a time in the near
> future where that comment would have you -or your colleagues- busting
> down my door to take me in for re-education)
>
just lacing up our jackboots now, be right over
Brent P
>> King Richard the second, mayor for life will eventually get his way at
>> least in some small way, I dunno what the political situation in Houston
>> is like.
> I can't see it ever becoming a law to allow government cameras inside a
> private residence. That is clearly unconstitutional if they apply it to the
> standards.
The constitution doesn't stop them here in c(r)ook county IL or most of
the USA for that matter. It just slows them down.
Brent P
> Oh, and I kinda figured you wouldn't expect that response, but I think you
> should have. I've written over and over again what the expectation of
> privacy and constitutional standards are. This clearly would not meet them.
But you have an overwhelming law-is-the-law mentality. If you think this
cannot become law and the courts cannot accept it, you're naive.
Remember the 'living document' point of view?
Brent P
> scapegoat) and escalates from there. Its only a matter of time before
> government demands surveilance in our homes - probablly under some
> fraudlent premise like "national security," or "war on terrorism," or
> similar bogeyman.
It will begin in multi-unit buildings and move towards single family
homes. It will be the danger posed to those living nearby. A safety
issue. I doubt it will go to cameras right off. Burdensome inspections
first. Then to get rid of the burden of inspections, some sort of
monitoring device will be offered for use.
Another route will be starting with 'bad people'. The homes of sex
offenders will be monitored first. It will grow from there. Eventually
the necesscary laws to make us all 'bad people' will be passed. For
instance, that peeling paint on the backsid of your house becomes a code
violation that requires monitoring. Or they will make it part of the
building process. IE to get the proper permit to have a water heater
installed you'll have to get the cameras.
The Man Behind The Curtain
--
Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven
The Man Behind The Curtain
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> "I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response
>> to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry
>> about it?" Chief Harold Hurtt told reporters Wednesday at a regular briefing.
>
> Whenever I hear that phrase I have to restrain myself from giving the
> speaker a hard cockpunch.
>
> Seriously, were these people sleeping through high school civics class?
>
>
No, they likely didn't attend, or think them learning books is for sissies.
John
Motorhead Lawyer
>
> As to the media, they keep running polls, changing the words, until
> they get an answer that supports their liberal agenda.
Obviously, you wouldn't recognize a "liberal agenda" if it bit you on
the ass - in front of a surveillance camera.
Not that this is a defense of typical media practices - you're correct
about 'polling'. However, if you think any actual *liberal* (as
opposed to your definition of a 'liberal' - anyone who disagrees with
you) supports the use of such surveillance tactics, you are one of the
most misguided 'liberal' haters I have ever seen.
--
C.R. Krieger
(The irony in here is thick enough to swim in.)
DTJ
>> As to the media, they keep running polls, changing the words, until
>> they get an answer that supports their liberal agenda.
>>
>> "Do you support the illegal use of cameras in businesses?
>
>What would be the "illegal" part of this?
>Their surveillance is places where "privacy" is not to be expected.
Pay attention. That was an example question from the media. There
are many ways to make this hypothetical camera illegal. For example,
the police requiring the company to have it there.
>When I was experiencing items missing from my workbench(calculator,hot air
>gun,company-owned VCR,Variac;items of some value)And other employees
>mentioned they were missing items,my first suspicions were the cleaning
>people.(I asked around if anyone borrowed the VCR or Variac)
>
>The office manager dismissed my suggestion,so I installed my own hidden
Not a good idea, could have cost you your job, and could have resulted
in a lawsuit against you from the criminals.
>camera,and taped the cleaning people opening one of my cabinet drawers and
>removing an item that they placed in their garbage can.
>Then I showed the office manager,who contacted the property manager
>responsible for the cleaning crew,who after viewing the tape,fired the
>entire crew.One cleaner attempted to challenge the firing until a copy of
>the tape was made available to his lawyer.
>I note that public surveillance cameras have resulted in the solution of
>child abduction cases resulting in the conviction of the perp,and many
>other crimes committed in public.
And while I am happy this has helped children, that, in and of itself,
does not justify the camera. If so, you would have to argue that it
is OK for the cops to beat everyone they see because every once in a
while they beat a terrorist.
*************************
Dave
DTJ
(Brent P) wrote:
>In article <smkkv1t9c0sqliek1...@4ax.com>, DTJ wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 10:41:10 -0600, tetraethylle...@yahoo.com
>> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>> How about your constitution class. You can't get past 8th grade and
>> high school without passing that.
>
>That was part of history class.
That's right. I forgot.
>> As to the media, they keep running polls, changing the words, until
>> they get an answer that supports their liberal agenda.
>
>Of course. Except it's not really a liberal media, but a pro democrat
>media. The mainstream media supports the government taking our rights, just
>clearly wants democrats in office.
That is for sure.
*************************
Dave
DTJ
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>In article <Xns9770C34E14C...@129.250.170.85>,
>Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
>>
>>What do you think about on-board cameras in police cruisers?
>>
>>IMO,they should not be able to be turned off or misaimed by the LEO,and
>>come on automatically for any traffic stop.
>
>The records just magically turn up blank if they wouldn't have
>supported the cop's story.
The film should be broadcast back to a non-governmental agency that
actually hates the government.
*************************
Dave
DTJ
wrote:
You would be wrong about me. By the correct definition, Bush and the
other liberals commonly referred to as Republicans, are not that bad
in my book. What the media refers to as liberals are actually
socialists and communists.
*************************
Dave
SD Dave
>necromancer <necro...@kretp.tmy> wrote in
>news:MPG.1e63ecda6...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:
>
>>> I think there should be a ten year "trial period", during which the
>> only folks
>>> subjected to surveillance would be law enforcement personnel,
>>> politicians and insurance lobbyists.
>>>
>>> It might just turn out to be unworkable,.. for some reason. ;)
>>
>> Yep. I'm rather sure that Sen. Kennedy would rather not have his
>> driving habits monitored...
>>
>
>I note that Sen.Kennedy also delayed reporting HIS accident with Mary Jo
>Kopechne drowning in his auto for several hours. B-)
Kennedy and Cheney have a lot in common, eh?
Dave
Brent P
SD Dave
(Brent P) wrote:
Holy shit, that's the funniest thing I've seen in years, but I dislike
both Democraps and Republicanus.
My first thought after seeing that was "Natural Born Killers 2"
directed by Oliver Stone.
Dave
gpsman
B-b-b-b-b-b BWA-HAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahahahaha...!
I usually don't respond to this political type bullshit, but Geezus...
does this damn usenet thing come with a disclaimer? I'm suing
-somefuckinbody-... Dave , you almost gave me a heart attack.
Forget about the cite to your definition... I couldn't fuckin' take
that, I just be too o l d...
-----
- gpsman
jaybird
"N8N" <njn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140547495.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I didn't take it as harsh at all. I know that I may seem that way to many
in here because I'm usually defending or explaining current police practices
that are already established. So yes, there is a point where I think that
law enforcement has a boundary even though it may not seem like it. The way
I look at it is that I wouldn't want anyone monitoring my home and I
wouldn't expect to be able to do that to anyone else while at work (outside
of a valid and constitutional search warrant - had to throw my disclaimer in
there :o).
jaybird
I know that you and I are usually the most divided and hardly ever agree on
anything, but yes, I do not support that cop administrator's opinion and
would not support the practice if it was tried.
For another insight into cop work, there are many times when the grunt on
the street doesn't like some of the policies enacted or attempted by
administrators. Sometimes it seems that the longer they have the gold
insignia on their collars, the more they forget what it's like at the bottom
and become more of a politician than a cop.
jaybird
"necromancer" <necro...@kretp.tmy> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e65336c3...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
We seem to keep butting heads right on the drawn line between what we think
is constitutional and what is not. I think we keep forgetting to point out
all of the clues and indicators that are involved in these cases because
there are so many and each situation is different. There is hardly one case
or situation that is exactly the same as the next and that is why this has
become such a fluid issue. It's not an easy topic by any means, and there
are no easy answers. We just have to keep doing the best we can while
adhering to the rights of the people vs. the enforcement of our laws.
Jim Yanik
news:h0mnv1t25ml8ukavc...@4ax.com:
Hardly;
Cheney didn't kill anyone,nor did he leave them to die while sobering up.
necromancer
> We seem to keep butting heads right on the drawn line between what we think
> is constitutional and what is not. I think we keep forgetting to point out
> all of the clues and indicators that are involved in these cases because
> there are so many and each situation is different.
If the police can develop their information on the criminal element in
ways that do not intrude on the rights and person/property of the law
abiding, that is fine with me. Seems to me that they were adept at doing
so in the past.
> There is hardly one case
> or situation that is exactly the same as the next and that is why this has
> become such a fluid issue. It's not an easy topic by any means, and there
> are no easy answers. We just have to keep doing the best we can while
> adhering to the rights of the people vs. the enforcement of our laws.
All things being equal, I'd rather that we err on the side of the rights
of the people. I'd rather see 1000 guilty go free than to
imprison/detain one law abiding citizen.
necromancer
> >http://www.geocities.com/tetraethyllead/doublethreat.jpg
>
> Holy shit, that's the funniest thing I've seen in years, but I dislike
> both Democraps and Republicanus.
>
> My first thought after seeing that was "Natural Born Killers 2"
> directed by Oliver Stone.
Maybe they could remake "Christine," with Cheney and Kennedy in the
Chevy...
necromancer
> >
> >I note that Sen.Kennedy also delayed reporting HIS accident with Mary Jo
> >Kopechne drowning in his auto for several hours. B-)
>
> Kennedy and Cheney have a lot in common, eh?
Except that Kennedy has killed, Cheney has yet to kill...
(but its just a matter of time...)
necromancer
> Maybe they could remake "Christine," with Cheney and Kennedy in the
> Chevy...
oops, meant Fury, not Chevy. My bad...
jaybird
"necromancer" <necro...@kretp.tmy> wrote in message
> jaybird:
>> We seem to keep butting heads right on the drawn line between what we
>> think
>> is constitutional and what is not. I think we keep forgetting to point
>> out
>> all of the clues and indicators that are involved in these cases because
>> there are so many and each situation is different.
>
> If the police can develop their information on the criminal element in
> ways that do not intrude on the rights and person/property of the law
> abiding, that is fine with me. Seems to me that they were adept at doing
> so in the past.
Sounds good to me.
>
>> There is hardly one case
>> or situation that is exactly the same as the next and that is why this
>> has
>> become such a fluid issue. It's not an easy topic by any means, and
>> there
>> are no easy answers. We just have to keep doing the best we can while
>> adhering to the rights of the people vs. the enforcement of our laws.
>
> All things being equal, I'd rather that we err on the side of the rights
> of the people. I'd rather see 1000 guilty go free than to
> imprison/detain one law abiding citizen.
And I agree. I don't care to invade any rights of law abiding citizens.
DTJ
wrote:
>>> Yep. I'm rather sure that Sen. Kennedy would rather not have his
>>> driving habits monitored...
>>>
>>
>>I note that Sen.Kennedy also delayed reporting HIS accident with Mary Jo
>>Kopechne drowning in his auto for several hours. B-)
>
>Kennedy and Cheney have a lot in common, eh?
You REALLY need to get your news from somewhere other than the
nytimes. Cheney did talk to the media about this, he just didn't
waste his time calling up the morons in the WH press core. Why does
he have to talk to the nytimes? Isn't the media in Texas good enough?
*************************
Dave