Government Abuse of Our Rights (687 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 0.6 on 59 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by alragusa (View user info) at 2005-08-15 10:37:06 EDT
I live in New York City. As you may have heard, citizens are now subject to random bag searches on subways and buses by the police. The NYCLU actually is suing the city.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/08/05/transitsecurity.lawsuit.ap/
For those of you who do not know your basic civil rights, the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees us to:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Now, while I am a young conservative in a solidly liberal city, I find that both conservatives (all 4 of us) and liberals are freely and willingly giving up their freedom for "safety". I find this idea appalling (we all know the Ben Franklin quote). I abhor the ALCU but their NYC branch is spot on. The thing that really pisses me off is people KNOW THEY ARE GIVING UP THEIR RIGHTS!! When will this stop? Will we allow Big Brother to come into our homes, bug our phones, put cameras in our bedrooms?
Please keep in mind that I am a conservative who likes small government and capitalism but also respects the rights of all peoples, animals and the environment. I am also a realist but optimistic that compromise is always possible. My final question...How much freedom are we expected to give up to live up to our social contract called America?
User Reviews
Submitted by knucklesnelson (user info) at 2005-08-31 19:52:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-08-16 07:49:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
and your assumptions that I have not studied this subject matter in detail is slightly offensive.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-08-16 07:49:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by alragusa (user info) at 2005-08-15 12:55:17 (#)
Ranking: 0
Rad - seriously now - you are asking me to move?
I bet we would agree on 80% of issues but to move? NO FUCKING WAY MAN! I am a fucking citizen and the 4th amendment protects me everywhere. "...secure in their persons" to me means I cannot be touched without consent. Again, I am not carrying drugs, but this is a matter of granting govt more power.
If you were a student of history then you would know that people such as Jefferson and Madison and Hamilton would be supporting my view b/c they wanted limited govt. IT IS THE PEOPLE THAT GIVE THE GOVT POWER and I do not agree that we should give the govt the power to randomly search persons.
Loki is spot on with the statement "Don't tell me you actually feel safer getting on the subway because some window licker strip searched an old lady." This is a totally shit program which is giving everyone a false sense of security. I really believe most people are clueless.
-----------------
All I was saying is that certain actions you take automatically gives consent for you to be searched.
Furthermore, I was merely playing devil's advocate with the issue; there is no reason for you to either assume I don't agree with you, and that I haven't studied my history/case law.
Also, I feel that speculating on whether or not a founding father would agree with your point of view does us very much good either way. I mean, who cares what they thought 230 years ago when the government is supposed to be serving us now. They gave us a framework; it is up to us to build our own house.
And yes, you have choices to make. I'm not telling you to move or change jobs, I was just suggesting that you have all your thoughts in one box and perhaps you should peek outside that box every little while.
As far as I am concerned, I don't deal with subways because I can drive my car the 15 miles from my house to my work, so this is sort of a non-issue for me.
In conclusion, we pretty much agree on everything here, except that I believe that the premise for your argument needs to be changed slightly; your facts just do not support your beliefs.
I feel that the police and transit authority should have the right to search any passenger based on reasonable suspicion. And I think it is a god damn shame that you cannot use the age, sex, or ethnicity as a part of your justification for searches.
I'm not saying that profiling should be the ONLY justification for a detainment or search; I am saying that it should be able to be used as a part of an officer's rationale for the detainment/search. I mean, who is blowing shit up most of the time?
Young, arab males.
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2005-08-15 16:54:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Get used to it.
It's bound to get worse from here.
Submitted by ParlorTrick (user info) at 2005-08-15 16:51:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Can't say it better than Loki.
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2005-08-15 16:30:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
>>>
This is a clear violation, you dolt. That's why you are allowed to refuse. The police cannot look through your stuff without your consent or a warrant! I for one refuse.
>>>
If you're allowed to refuse, then it's not a violation. But the name-calling really helped punctuate your point strongly. Now I really buy it. *roll eyes*
>>>
BTW, if you think this is actually going to prevent anything, you are kidding yourself. Something will happen again and I am sure the govt will step it up to the next level. Can you say "Random house searches"? Slippery slope my friends.
>>>
Now you're changing the issue entirely, and speculating while you're at it.
I'd say I'm just about done here.
Submitted by alragusa (user info) at 2005-08-15 16:27:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This is a clear violation, you dolt. That's why you are allowed to refuse. The police cannot look through your stuff without your consent or a warrant! I for one refuse.
BTW, if you think this is actually going to prevent anything, you are kidding yourself. Something will happen again and I am sure the govt will step it up to the next level. Can you say "Random house searches"? Slippery slope my friends.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2005-08-15 16:10:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by alragusa (user info) at 2005-08-15 15:36:41 (#)
Ranking: 0
Ridership is $2 and comes with the possibility of being searched.
=================================================================
Just because they say it doesn't make it right! This is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment and any person with a legal background would readily back me up on this!
----
wrong. don't ride the bus, then.
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2005-08-15 15:54:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
>>>
Just because they say it doesn't make it right! This is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment and any person with a legal background would readily back me up on this!
>>>
Repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. I don't buy it at all. If it was that clear, it would have been struck down.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-08-15 15:52:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by alragusa (user info) at 2005-08-15 15:36:41 (#)
Ranking: 0
Ridership is $2 and comes with the possibility of being searched.
=================================================================
Just because they say it doesn't make it right! This is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment and any person with a legal background would readily back me up on this!
-------------------------------
How is it a clear violation? If this is a clear violation then searching people at airports is a clear violation. I realize they are not exactly the same, but they are similiar. If it wa such a clear violation police would not be doing it. Do you know how much the ACLU is probably going to go for?
Submitted by alragusa (user info) at 2005-08-15 15:36:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Ridership is $2 and comes with the possibility of being searched.
=================================================================
Just because they say it doesn't make it right! This is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment and any person with a legal background would readily back me up on this!
Submitted by Foonbo (user info) at 2005-08-15 14:47:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I don't care about this because it's New York, and I don't care about New York.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-08-15 14:42:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
But the general public has NO say in anything before it becomes a law. Once it is law, the only challenge is in court, which is when the domenads/DJMatts, etc. (who make up about half the country) decide to call us crybaby sissy pinkos and say we're supporting criminals by opposing the government's will.
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2005-08-15 14:35:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Well, that has some merit to it, but I think it's a lot farther from happening than that.
People are going to have different comfort levels with each new regulation (obviously, you're not comfortable with subway searches, for example). But as things get more and more intrusive, I think it'll be harder and harder to slip things past the general public at a certain point.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-08-15 14:31:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I fear it is only a matter of time before there ARE random stops all the time. All of the "tough on crime" legislation is pushing us toward that. The problem is, there will be no way to STOP it once it is put into effect, just like the random subway searches.
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2005-08-15 14:26:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yes, but that's just on major holidays. People can put up with that a few times a year and plan accordingly. Stopping cars on major holidays for DUI checks is one of those things I think falls on the acceptable side of the line.
That would never fly 365 days a year. Travel in this country would be reduced to a constant crawl. (It would be like living in and driving in the Boston area, anywhere you went!)
The original example was not "Stopping cars on major holidays, vs. random subway searches." The difference between the two in the original example is crystal clear.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-08-15 14:22:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You will be stopped and searched for walking away because the US Supreme Court has said that anything a police officer deems suspicious is grounds for a stop and pat-down/verbal interrogation (look up Terry stop on Google). Which you can refuse, but that just makes you more suspicious and more likely to have an unpleasant encounter.
As far as why stopping random crs wouldn't be different? Most major holidays see random stops to "check for DUI." Well, the originally were sobriety checkpoints. Now they are sobriety/look in the car at the contents/let the police dogs walk around sniffing/mini-interrogation points. Again, refusing to take the tests/answer the questions will be deemed suspicious and a reason to search further.
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2005-08-15 14:16:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
>>>
Any son-of-a-bitch with a bomb strapped to his chest is going to run in and pull the trigger
>>>
And also -- any son-of-a-bitch with a bomb strapped to his chest would much rather GET ON THE TRAIN before pulling the trigger. And if he was that hellbent on killing people, and the subway's closed off due to searches, he'd be just as successful not bothering with subways, and just strolling into a crowded market somewhere. So, really, we're just discussing the people who are trying to get on the trains, not the ones who are just trying to kill anywhere. When it comes down to it, if someone wants to kill a bunch of people anywhere and isn't too concerned with WHERE, he's going to be successful, and there's very little anyone can do about it in the end.
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2005-08-15 14:14:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
>>>
My point regarding walking away is that there will be NO way to avoid the search once you are picked. That is un-American.
>>>
No, I don't agree. If you want to avoid the search, you leave. I do think it's just that easy. I don't think New York searches are any different than London searches.
And why do you disagree about the fundamental difference between the first two examples? One is actually pulling cars over on a highway. This takes time, causes traffic jams, and is overall a complete nightmare scenario for travellers. The other one is searching people who are waiting to get on a train and the overall inconvenience is negligible. Since the searches have been instituted, has anyone really noticed that they're getting to their destinations at a much later time than they planned? If cops started pulling people over on the highway and searched entire vehicles, don't you think that WOULD cause people to start getting to destinations much later?
You honestly don't see a difference in these two scenarios? Really??
Yes, they're both intrusive. One, however, is ridiculously intrusive and time-consuming, and the other one is simply annoying. I agree, a line has to be drawn somewhere. It's a trade-off between personal liberty and safety. I don't see the subway searches as falling on the wrong side of that line.
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2005-08-15 14:09:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Why should you be reimbursed for your fare? You knew the deal when you bought the fare. Ridership is $2 and comes with the possibility of being searched. You knew that going in. If you didn't like it, you shouldn't have taken your chances with the $2.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-08-15 14:06:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I still disagree with the difference, but I doubt we'll reconcile that.
My point regarding walking away is that there will be NO way to avoid the search once you are picked. That is un-American.
Submitted by alragusa (user info) at 2005-08-15 14:05:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
...checking riders who are already stopped. Standing around.
============================================================
Congo, this is ridiculous. A terrorist will not be standing around waiting for a search. Any son-of-a-bitch with a bomb strapped to his chest is going to run in and pull the trigger.
Another question - if, while I'm standing waiting for the train and I refuse to be searched, will I be reimbursed for my fare? I think not. I don't expect to be arrested however.
(For those unaware, a Metrocard is swiped at a turnstile that debits $2 before you enter the platform.)
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2005-08-15 14:04:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yes, I do think that. If you walk away, you'll probably be watched. You might even be searched. But you can't be arrested for walking away. There's absolutely nothing illegal about that.
In London, Tony Blair even stated when describing the new search policy that you have the option of walking away.
Since you've responded to only that part, I can assume then that my answer about the difference between pulling over cars as compared to searching a few people who are standing around waiting for a train is sufficient?
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-08-15 14:02:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
congo, in most places, suspicious activity, i.e. running from or even avoiding police, is grounds for a Terry stop at best and arrest at worst.
You think avoiding the police at a potential terrorist target isn't going to get you that treatment?
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2005-08-15 13:49:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Excuse me. I misread.
but I do not agree that you would be arrested if you turned around and walked away. What grounds would you be arrested on? Walking away? That's not illegal. If you have nothing to hide, and walk away, you can't be arrested for that.
And even still -- stopping cars on I-95 is a hell of a lot more extreme than checking riders who are already stopped. Standing around. Pulling over a car on a highway is an example I would consider crossing a line.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-08-15 13:47:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-08-15 13:35:34 (#)
Ranking: 0
congo, so what if they stopped random cars on the I-95 and said you MUST consent to a search in order to continue?
EVERYONE would be up in arms then.
-----------------
Where did I say stop everyone? Are you illiterate? Stopped random cars. Not stopped everyone.
But everyone would be up in arms if you ran a 1 in 10 chance of getting pulled over and searched with no option to say no on every major highway in America. Because I guarantee that if you are picked to be searched on the NYC subway and you try to turn around and walk out, you're getting arrested by the cops.
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2005-08-15 13:42:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
See, you're making the same mistake again.
Stopping EVERYONE on I-95 is just a ridiculous example. It logistically can't be done.
Stopping a small percentage of riders on the subway can actually be done without interfering too much in the general rider populations' lives. Therefore, that one is done.
Yes, there is a line to be drawn somewhere between allowable and ridiculous. I don't think searching some subway riders falls on the other side of that line.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-08-15 13:35:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
congo, so what if they stopped random cars on the I-95 and said you MUST consent to a search in order to continue?
EVERYONE would be up in arms then.
Submitted by Chinaski (user info) at 2005-08-15 13:32:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Your bigger worry is the impending collapse of the world's ecosystems in apprx. 50 years.
Sure, you might go to jail and get raped for the weed in your bag before then...
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2005-08-15 13:27:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
well, Loki's argument is a bit extreme, obviously.
Sure, we could stop more crime if we were to search every single person every single day, but that's not very feasible.
However, we CAN search some number of subway riders, and possibly stop a huge, horrific crime, so there is merit in it.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2005-08-15 13:27:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I have heard that behavioral profiling actually works better than either random searches or racial profiling.
I don't really know what to say about racial profiling. It seems to rather put an unfair burden on the people who fit the profile who are just living their lives. If every single fucking time I got on an airplane, some jackass yanked me out of the security line and hassled me because I have blue eyes and all the recent terrorists had blue eyes, I wonder how long it would be before I snapped and started blowing shit up.
Besides, wouldn't a smart terrorist use racial profiling against the police by dying their hair and wearing a disguise?
When it got really stupid was when Sam got searched three times in one trip because the TSA were trying to pad the stats the other way and he is the furthest thing from Arab looking.
a total waste of money really
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-08-15 13:15:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Notice no one has argues with loki over her I-95 comparison, which is the best comparison given yet....
Submitted by alragusa (user info) at 2005-08-15 13:06:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The Founding Fathers were some of the greatest thinkers in the history of man. Here's what thy said:
"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."
"... rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our own will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual"
Thomas Jefferson
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
Wendell Phillips
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
James Madison
and of course...
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Most acknowledge that we are giving up our rights. My point has been where will this end?
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2005-08-15 13:01:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
actually, I take that back.
Profiled searching is the next best thing. Random searching is useless, unless they get lucky.
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2005-08-15 12:59:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
>>>
Actually it is different. With planes, EVERYONE is searched. This is random. As for "don't have to ride the Subway" how do you expect 3 million people a day get around? Be a realist!
>>>
Well, you're right about that. I wish they'd search EVERYONE too.
but they can't. It's not possible. So random searching is the next best thing.
Submitted by alragusa (user info) at 2005-08-15 12:55:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Rad - seriously now - you are asking me to move?
I bet we would agree on 80% of issues but to move? NO FUCKING WAY MAN! I am a fucking citizen and the 4th amendment protects me everywhere. "...secure in their persons" to me means I cannot be touched without consent. Again, I am not carrying drugs, but this is a matter of granting govt more power.
If you were a student of history then you would know that people such as Jefferson and Madison and Hamilton would be supporting my view b/c they wanted limited govt. IT IS THE PEOPLE THAT GIVE THE GOVT POWER and I do not agree that we should give the govt the power to randomly search persons.
Loki is spot on with the statement "Don't tell me you actually feel safer getting on the subway because some window licker strip searched an old lady." This is a totally shit program which is giving everyone a false sense of security. I really believe most people are clueless.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-08-15 12:36:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
and when I say "privileges" I suppose I mean "rights".
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-08-15 12:34:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
so do I have this correct: you automatically cede your privacy privileges when you board public transport?
I think I read something about this on CNN the other day - isn't the random searching placing big time demands on the police, making them less effective elsewhere? seems to me that trying to catch people that way is more of a publicity effort than an effective countermeasure.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-08-15 12:20:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
AND london has the right idea with their racial profiling.
too bad americans (usually people like Loki) are against it.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-08-15 12:19:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
LOKI i AGREE11!!!!
sorta.
NOW
----
Public transportation is my only option to get to work. And, just as the fellow with the gift for his GF basically said - privacy is not a privilege; it's a right.
--
Nope. Privacy in your house and property are a right, privacy in public is a privilege. The 4th amendment is interpreted literally by the supreme court usually; just look at the Terry and Ross cases.
There is no violation of the amendment by randomly searching people, nor is it a violation to search people who VOLUNTEER to ride the underground trains.
And as far as you ABSOLUTELY NEEDING TO RIDE THE SUBWAY.
Get a job in the Bronx or an apartment in Manhatten. Or move or an area of the country where you can avoid daily searches and still commute to work.
THERE ARE ALWAYS CHOICES, MAKE THE DECISIONS ON WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO YOU AND QUIT BITCHING IF YOU ARE UNWILLING TO ADAPT AND OVERCOME
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2005-08-15 12:06:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
It is a lot different. We could solve a lot of crimes if we just posted a road block to stop everyone on I-95 and searched them.
Is that the world you really want to live in?
Oh but using I-95 is a completely voluntary activity though right.
Don't tell me you actually feel safer getting on the subway because some window licker strip searched an old lady.
because if you do then you are, in fact, a pussy
Personally, I value my freedom more than I value empty senseless waste of money and time pretend security measures.
It's funny that the same people who bitch about "big government" are the first ones who support this kind of crap.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-08-15 11:59:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by alragusa (user info) at 2005-08-15 11:49:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-08-15 11:38:17 (#)
Ranking: -2
They don't have to ride the Subway. It is no different than searching bags on planes.
================================================================
Actually it is different. With planes, EVERYONE is searched. This is random. As for "don't have to ride the Subway" how do you expect 3 million people a day get around? Be a realist!
Also, I have nothing to hide, but the point is we are giving the government alot of power and this always leads to a abuse. Just look at what happened to the USSR.
------------------------------
It is different, but I think the principal is the same. Not everyone on planes gets the extensive search, they do that at random do you have a problem with that? If 3 million people want the convenience of Subways then they need to suck it up and ut up with the subways rules.
Submitted by alragusa (user info) at 2005-08-15 11:49:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-08-15 11:38:17 (#)
Ranking: -2
They don't have to ride the Subway. It is no different than searching bags on planes.
================================================================
Actually it is different. With planes, EVERYONE is searched. This is random. As for "don't have to ride the Subway" how do you expect 3 million people a day get around? Be a realist!
Also, I have nothing to hide, but the point is we are giving the government alot of power and this always leads to a abuse. Just look at what happened to the USSR.
Submitted by alragusa (user info) at 2005-08-15 11:42:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
To my detractors, thanks for your input.
"You fag" is really a great point. Of course my sexual orientation doesn't really change my argument so I assume that either (a) you are in fact unsure of your sexual leanings and therefore look for opportunities to lash out, or (b) you were sodomized as a child and look to the Internet for a chance to talk jive. In either case, please double your dosage of medication because you need more.
To the person who said I would somehow be a paraplegic if I don't subject to a search, the fact is I have a better chance of getting hit by lightning then dying in a terrorist attack.
The one good point that I'd like to respond to is about "voluntary" usage of the subway. The fact is, I HATE THE SUBAY! It is dirty, crowded and hot. However, as a young professional commuting from the Bronx (a borough of NYC) to Manhattan, I have no other option. There are no cabs in my area and I cannot ride my bike 15 miles each way (even though I do enjoy bike riding). Public transportation is my only option to get to work. And, just as the fellow with the gift for his GF basically said - privacy is not a privilege; it's a right.
As for "Get Out" - how about "Fuck you"? I pay taxes and I obey the law. I REFUSE TO FEEL LIKE A CRIMINAL WHENEVER I SEE A COP! If you take the time to read our founding documents you'll see that the government gets its power from us and we need to limit it now.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-08-15 11:38:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
They don't have to ride the Subway. It is no different than searching bags on planes.
Submitted by ozzy (user info) at 2005-08-15 11:31:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Legalities aside, why would anyone care about having their bag searched unless they had something to hide? Maybe the supply of frilly pink underwear in your bag is embarrasing for you, but I'd choose safety over privacy everytime.
Submitted by DJMattB241 (user info) at 2005-08-15 11:07:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
what drunk rad said.
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2005-08-15 10:59:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Stop bitching and grow the fuck up.
Fag
Submitted by Vulva (user info) at 2005-08-15 10:59:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-08-15 10:56:05 (#)
Ranking: 2
I understand completely where you are coming from, but have you considered that your 4th amendment rights aren't applicable when you choose to partake in the completely voluntary act of riding public transportation.
The very fact you choose to subject yourself to the rules, regulations, and policies of conduct of your local transit authority fully gives them a warrant to search and seize your person, papers, and effects.
Think about it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-08-15 10:58:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
and *write* about how you smoked etc...
never mind.
I'm drunk and would probably smoke out with you at this point.
I retract my previous statement.
you pussy.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-08-15 10:56:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Loki, shut the fuck up and about how you smoked a bowl and looked at some nature and bought some shit from target.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-08-15 10:56:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I understand completely where you are coming from, but have you considered that your 4th amendment rights aren't applicable when you choose to partake in the completely voluntary act of riding public transportation.
The very fact you choose to subject yourself to the rules, regulations, and policies of conduct of your local transit authority fully gives them a warrant to search and seize your person, papers, and effects.
Think about it.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2005-08-15 10:53:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
we've become a nation of pussies
the terrorists have won
Submitted by vettesrule88 (user info) at 2005-08-15 10:52:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
psycho... he has a point. I assume youre british, or canadian... but we as americans are granted certain rights. Whether you have something illegal or not, noone has the right, without warrant, to open a bag, open a locked door, etc. for instance, me and some freinds were walking home from school the other day. A cop sees four teenage guys and a girl (my girlfriend), 2 on skateboards, and assumes we're up to no good. he asks to search our bags, everyone said yes, except me, as i had a gift for my girlfriend in the bag, and it was a surprise.
refusing a search doesnt constitute a warrant, and although he was pissed, and my freinds and girlfriend assumed i had a kilo of coke, i have the right to do that. once you take away rights like the 4th amendment that would seem to be only used for illegalities, then they can stretch that and take away others, all i nthe name of "freedom"... if were doing this to protect fredom, why are we taking more and more away
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2005-08-15 10:46:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
nobody's forcing you to submit to searches, just like no one's forcing you to ride the subway.
If you don't like it, take a cab or walk, or take a bike.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-08-15 10:46:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
You sound like you're 12.
Submitted by Psychonaught (user info) at 2005-08-15 10:41:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Also, FUCKING MOVE IF YOU DONT LIKE IT.
Submitted by Psychonaught (user info) at 2005-08-15 10:40:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Good Point. Once your are laying in a paraplegic state, with burns over 90% of your body, due to a bomb in Habeebs bag. I'm sure you will still keep your opinion. MORONIC AMERICAN.
Submitted by swamp_donkey (user info) at 2005-08-15 10:39:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Yeah!