|
Zonie63 -> RE: Cop put on leave after tasing 61-year-old woman (10/6/2014 10:19:15 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
Zonie,
There have to be rules and regulations so that we all know where we stand. This concept is inseparable from the Rule of Law.
As has been pointed out in this thread, the lady was causing a problem at a crime scene and in effect hampering the efforts of the polis to undertake their duties, and as such she needed to be reprimanded.
The rules and regulations are also supposed to apply to the police officers, too. No one is above the law. Due to past abuses, particularly when it comes to State and police treatment towards poor or disadvantaged communities, even more scrutiny has had to be put on the police and their methods. The lady simply wanted to know what was going on.
quote:
Where I do agree with you is that we have a situation over here whereby people can be stopped and detained at airports and the like, and have their property confiscated for this period of time, I think it's up to 10 hours; and the polis can do this without holding any reasonable suspicion of guilt (all to do with 'security'). In effect, they can stop and detain anyone. Accusations of a 'police state' could quite justifiably be levelled at our government and associates in this scenario.
The only difference is that citizens have a choice as to whether they want to enter an airport or travel by airplane. But if a person is in his/her own home or neighborhood (either trying to get home, to the store, to work, etc.), then that's a different matter entirely. At the airport, their primary concern is terrorism and potential threats to human life, although I would agree that what they're doing now is overkill...but not necessarily indicative of a "police state," since going to the airport or traveling by air is strictly voluntary. There are plenty of signs posted, and (unlike the lady who got tased) everyone has the choice to simply walk away and exit the airport perimeter.
Similarly, when one is in a motorized vehicle, the cops have a certain amount of leeway in pulling people over if they're driving in a manner which might put other lives at risk. Sometimes they might use this to their advantage and pull people over for bullshit reasons - or there might be speed traps set up just for the sake of writing citations to gain revenue. Some jurisdictions have also set up DUI checkpoints at certain times. Then there are also various checkpoints established by the Border Patrol, who also have quite a bit of leeway in the regions along the border - not just at the border, but quite a ways inside too.
quote:
It's the age old question of how order and liberty can be balanced.
And, in my opinion, the balance was struck with this lady in the US and I don't think she can have any complaints, whereas what is happening over here with detaining people in the interests of 'security' is another matter.
I think it really depends on how high the stakes are and whether or not it's really worth it. Is society any safer or more secure due to this "lawbreaker" being tased and subdued by the police? And her complaint is valid and being taken seriously by the powers that be within that jurisdiction. This was not a case of balancing liberty with security, since this lady was clearly no threat to national security, or society, or anyone else for that matter. There was no clear and present danger.
And the whole pretext for the cops being out there in the first place - arresting people for "drugs" - even that might be a questionable use of the law which justifies too many other encroachments upon civil liberties. A few months ago, some Border Patrol agents shot and killed an unarmed man who was running away because they caught him with some marijuana in his car. (They "thought" he had a gun.) Cops going around acting like Rambo over a bag of weed. Is this a proper balance between liberty and security? Are the "security" benefits to society really that great as to justify such a ridiculous level of overkill? I think not.
|
|
|
|
