How far can they go.
0
No specific guidelines here, i just want you people to tell me how far YOU think your, or any other, government is allowed to go to ensure the keeping of the law and human rights and to prevent terrorisme. Happy discussing.
To get you under way here's a part you could talk about: Preventief checking someone for illegal goods.
(Logging off so i cannot state an opinion atm, will be back in full force tomorrow)
To get you under way here's a part you could talk about: Preventief checking someone for illegal goods.
(Logging off so i cannot state an opinion atm, will be back in full force tomorrow)
0
I think the U.S. government will go as far as the people armed with guns will allow them.
Freedom of Speech will be curbed in various ways so only popular speech is protected. Already now in the American politics anybody who opposes certain government expansions are shouted down with comments like "brooks brothers brigade, Racists,etc". With talk of granting control of the internet which is the last bastion of free speech over to the Federal Government it's not much of a stretch to see a country where opposition is silenced just like it is in China on the internet. You speak out, they "harmonize" your posts and start looking for you.
Right to bear arms is being curved under the notion that "You don't need that for anything other than hurting people." "Guns are bad". The current laws already make it near impossible for ordinary civilians to fight back if the government makes the decision to use the military as a police force. So, with people like them leading the charge. We'll be stripped of our ability to defend ourselves by law or by force.
With no arms to protect ourselves our third amendment to our bill of rights is nothing but, empty words. The soldiers want housing in my home and I refuse based on my rights, they can put a bullet in my head. Why? Because I'm powerless to stop them.
Without the ability to protect ourselves from overzealous police or military forces even the fourth Amendment is nothing but empty words. The police just break into your home (without a warrant) or search your car because they "suspect" you did something. How are you suppose to fight back? Use the legal system is is on the side of the police?
I could go on but, you get the point. Government is expanding and chipping away at civil liberties. The average citizen is either too lazy/distracted to care.The few who do care are essentially split amongst two parties that have nothing separating them except minor differences or the color of their ties.
Freedom of Speech will be curbed in various ways so only popular speech is protected. Already now in the American politics anybody who opposes certain government expansions are shouted down with comments like "brooks brothers brigade, Racists,etc". With talk of granting control of the internet which is the last bastion of free speech over to the Federal Government it's not much of a stretch to see a country where opposition is silenced just like it is in China on the internet. You speak out, they "harmonize" your posts and start looking for you.
Right to bear arms is being curved under the notion that "You don't need that for anything other than hurting people." "Guns are bad". The current laws already make it near impossible for ordinary civilians to fight back if the government makes the decision to use the military as a police force. So, with people like them leading the charge. We'll be stripped of our ability to defend ourselves by law or by force.
With no arms to protect ourselves our third amendment to our bill of rights is nothing but, empty words. The soldiers want housing in my home and I refuse based on my rights, they can put a bullet in my head. Why? Because I'm powerless to stop them.
Without the ability to protect ourselves from overzealous police or military forces even the fourth Amendment is nothing but empty words. The police just break into your home (without a warrant) or search your car because they "suspect" you did something. How are you suppose to fight back? Use the legal system is is on the side of the police?
I could go on but, you get the point. Government is expanding and chipping away at civil liberties. The average citizen is either too lazy/distracted to care.The few who do care are essentially split amongst two parties that have nothing separating them except minor differences or the color of their ties.
0
Jericho Antares
FAKKU Writer
I actually had to give a bit of a speech a couple weeks back on the negatives of gun control and got booed off-stage. I can definitely see where you're coming from, penguin, at least in terms of people not caring/going with the flow.
0
Jericho Antares wrote...
I actually had to give a bit of a speech a couple weeks back on the negatives of gun control and got booed off-stage. I can definitely see where you're coming from, penguin, at least in terms of people not caring/going with the flow.Question, what was the nature of the audience at that speech? A bunch of college "intellectuals", respectable college students or grads? Random people from the area,etc?
0
Good topic to discuss because youll get so many diffrent views or alot of people saying the same thing in diffrent words.
On Gun control: Ofcourse getting gun outta the hands of people makes it safer, but for who? Safety is always an issue with weapons. there will always be weapons on the street in the hands of criminals, NO AMMMOUNT of gun control can stop it. But someone who owns a gun can prevent being a casualty. Keeping the heavy weapons, like AK47, or any automatic rifle off streets is a biggie in which at large America has done a good job. but there always will be guns, and criminals who will use them. So making laws that makes guns harder to obtain in the US is downright evil. If i go down ill go down defending myself.
Censorship: well I beleieve that some censorship is good, i mean you really want a 10 or 12 year old browsing this site? lol. some not so good cause they take away my porn!!!! Ahh, the Line is drawn over and over till the side were on is against a cliff and were walking a fine line in what we say and do. On the other hand some of what people say SHOULD be censored. Rap song that talk about killing people or police, White racists hading out flyers for their gatherings. On the other hand if you take away there rights youll have to take away your own.
The legal system isnt always biased tword police though. If you get pulled over you have a right to refuse to be searched. If they do it anyway and you go to court they have to prove their susption before they can provide what they found. and ALWAY get a lawyer. Your rights are protected but only if you enforce it to the max.
Ok say you were driving drunk and get pulled over. you can refuse to give a breathalizer, bodily fluids and do a dextery test, they also cannot search you. If they ask you to get out of the car refuse and ask if your under arrest, cause once your under arrest you have rights. "the right to an attorney" and the good thing is in order to take fluids and give a breathalizer is that theyll need a warrent, by then you might be sober.
Still it all comes down to is what your willing to fight for. /rant off
On Gun control: Ofcourse getting gun outta the hands of people makes it safer, but for who? Safety is always an issue with weapons. there will always be weapons on the street in the hands of criminals, NO AMMMOUNT of gun control can stop it. But someone who owns a gun can prevent being a casualty. Keeping the heavy weapons, like AK47, or any automatic rifle off streets is a biggie in which at large America has done a good job. but there always will be guns, and criminals who will use them. So making laws that makes guns harder to obtain in the US is downright evil. If i go down ill go down defending myself.
Censorship: well I beleieve that some censorship is good, i mean you really want a 10 or 12 year old browsing this site? lol. some not so good cause they take away my porn!!!! Ahh, the Line is drawn over and over till the side were on is against a cliff and were walking a fine line in what we say and do. On the other hand some of what people say SHOULD be censored. Rap song that talk about killing people or police, White racists hading out flyers for their gatherings. On the other hand if you take away there rights youll have to take away your own.
The legal system isnt always biased tword police though. If you get pulled over you have a right to refuse to be searched. If they do it anyway and you go to court they have to prove their susption before they can provide what they found. and ALWAY get a lawyer. Your rights are protected but only if you enforce it to the max.
Ok say you were driving drunk and get pulled over. you can refuse to give a breathalizer, bodily fluids and do a dextery test, they also cannot search you. If they ask you to get out of the car refuse and ask if your under arrest, cause once your under arrest you have rights. "the right to an attorney" and the good thing is in order to take fluids and give a breathalizer is that theyll need a warrent, by then you might be sober.
Still it all comes down to is what your willing to fight for. /rant off
0
Jericho Antares
FAKKU Writer
Yeah, I was talking to college kids. I'm going through right now on the G.I. bill so I can get a commission when my rank permits.
Don't care what the students said, though. Prof gave me a good enough grade.
Don't care what the students said, though. Prof gave me a good enough grade.
0
Assuming the people booed you off stage for your position on gun control, what kind of people were the college kids? Republicans? Democrats?
0
HailTheFan wrote...
The legal system isnt always biased tword police though. If you get pulled over you have a right to refuse to be searched. If they do it anyway and you go to court they have to prove their susption before they can provide what they found. and ALWAY get a lawyer. Your rights are protected but only if you enforce it to the max.Ok say you were driving drunk and get pulled over. you can refuse to give a breathalizer, bodily fluids and do a dextery test, they also cannot search you. If they ask you to get out of the car refuse and ask if your under arrest, cause once your under arrest you have rights. "the right to an attorney" and the good thing is in order to take fluids and give a breathalizer is that theyll need a warrent, by then you might be sober.
Here the courts take a cop's word over anything. I've had my vehicle searched without my permission before. Why? I have no clue, probably my long hair as I was straight edge back then so it wasn't drugs or booze. Tried to file a complaint and a lawsuit. Courts struck it down because the cop said "Kid was being suspicious". I didn't have the ability to push farther up the legal system so I lost. All because a cop shrugged and said "Kid was being suspicious".
In Cobb County Georgia, I've had a officer lie under oath, no evidence of what I was being charged with, no witness to back up his argument. I was never asked to the stand for my side of the story. I ended up with a 5 year probation because the officer claimed I assaulted him when I never got out of my seat. I was 13 years old and 90lbs. He had everything from a gun, mace to a night stick. Yet, somehow a 13 year old boy beat the hell out of him.
Here its almost the cops can basically say you did something wrong and the courts will convict you. If you can afford the legal fees can you charge up the ladder.
0
The legal system isnt always biased tword police though. If you get pulled over you have a right to refuse to be searched. If they do it anyway and you go to court they have to prove their susption before they can provide what they found. and ALWAY get a lawyer. Your rights are protected but only if you enforce it to the max.
Not at all the case here, we got next to no rights of refusing the police anything. They wanna see your ID? You better have it or it's off to the police station with a €50- fine or something. It's the same system Nazi Germany used.
Now i understand you want the safety of knowing whether that person has a 20 pound bomb strapped around his waste or not, but in Holland our rights on privacy are being trampled by the rights for safety. Random checks on the airport, complete stripdowns in "risk" area's.
It's a tough thing, i mean what do you want? Safety? Or privacy? Personally i actually think whats done to preserve safety falls into the limits of privacy since i simply want to be safe and never come into contact with the police anyway. But the shouldn't push it much further either.
The moment they legalize preventive car/house searches is when i'll move away.
Here's another one for you guys:
Freedom of speech or discrimination? How far do each go and how far can your government go to prevent either?
0
Always be self aware of your legal rights. If you even had a public attoney you should of beat that cop rap with flying colors. at 13 you are a minor and police cannot even (in some states) give you your maranda rights without parent or guardian being present. And definitaly cannot interrogate you. thats a whole new barrel of conflicts theyll heap upon themselves. but again you cant defend yourself if you dont know the rules. as for the searching yes they can search, as i said. but they HAVE to prove probabale cause before they are able to present evidence. Any lawyer will enforce this. Public attorneys are not really good but they know more about your laws than you will and if you get arrested get an attorney and NEVER talk to the police. no matter what they say they are NOT your friend.
As for airport security. Heck search me all you want. I dont mind getting searched. its one freedom ill give in order to live through the flight on my way home. Its like any seccurity, you lose something but gain something....well mostly.
As for airport security. Heck search me all you want. I dont mind getting searched. its one freedom ill give in order to live through the flight on my way home. Its like any seccurity, you lose something but gain something....well mostly.
0
If I take a look upon our system and our right for privacy I think the right for privacy pretty much died out, the moment the computer / internet and the security cameras became popular.
An example: Recently in Germany the telephone and e-mail of a construction worker was monitored because he had been hired by the major of the city to re-paint the facade of the town hall.
That fact, pretty much speaks for itself in my opinion.
Regarding police authority etc. There is a law that states, that as long as no further witnesses are present the monitoring of a suspected crime, the policeman watching counts for 2 persons (however that only counts for minor traffic screw ups etc.)
The fact is that due to humans extreme paranoia, the state has a free hand to introduce new rules whenever and nearly however they like to, in the name of public security. Especially if fueled by terrorism and the like which strike by surprise.
So unless the courts of the countries finally manage to show the teeth to politicians, authorities and the like and start to punish those who take advantage of the modern possibilities to create a glass human, bend laws and define their own rules nothing will change. Sadly enough even in Germany, the "Bundesverfassungsgericht" has several times declared methods and reasons for surveillance as non conform with the law, the politicians still don't give a crap. (therefore my vote for the pirate party)
An example: Recently in Germany the telephone and e-mail of a construction worker was monitored because he had been hired by the major of the city to re-paint the facade of the town hall.
That fact, pretty much speaks for itself in my opinion.
Regarding police authority etc. There is a law that states, that as long as no further witnesses are present the monitoring of a suspected crime, the policeman watching counts for 2 persons (however that only counts for minor traffic screw ups etc.)
The fact is that due to humans extreme paranoia, the state has a free hand to introduce new rules whenever and nearly however they like to, in the name of public security. Especially if fueled by terrorism and the like which strike by surprise.
So unless the courts of the countries finally manage to show the teeth to politicians, authorities and the like and start to punish those who take advantage of the modern possibilities to create a glass human, bend laws and define their own rules nothing will change. Sadly enough even in Germany, the "Bundesverfassungsgericht" has several times declared methods and reasons for surveillance as non conform with the law, the politicians still don't give a crap. (therefore my vote for the pirate party)
0
Even in cases where officers do not outright commit perjury to help their case, they are professional witnesses, and their word in court is pretty much set in stone.
Add to that the esprit de corps, which is nearly nowhere (not even in the military) as rigid as in the police, and you get a mix nearly impossible to stand up against in trial as an individual. The only thing that can help you in these cases is media attention, but good luck mustering that; in the U.S., police enjoy a comparatively large amount of "good-will" from the media.
Going toe-to-toe with law enforcement in court is almost never a good idea.
It's a Miranda warning. You have no "rights". They're just gracious enough to warn you.
(P.S.: I'm not trying to incite hatred towards the police; they have their place and do their job. But, criticism of misconduct and system-inherent problems ought to be fair game, and even high-ranking police officers are questioning the status quo.)
Firearms will not help you against a corrupt (or tyrannic) government. That made sense in the age of muskets; in this day and age, it does no longer. The only hope (purely hypothetically speaking) if you wished to violently resist tyranny would be to enlist a sizable part of your very own army's officer corps as a putschist force. Or get rich enough to buy out Blackwater & Co., by which time you'll no longer want to putsch against your administration, because you can simply buy your own laws as you please.
The only remotely sensible plan (although still wildly utopian) as I see it, would be to pool large amounts of donated money, and use this fund to hire professional lobbyists and buy citizen-friendly laws. To the tune of $200mil. you should be able to get the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. ACT (love the U.S. for these abbreviations) repealed.
Now, as far as national security versus personal liberty is concerned:
I'm neither a libertarian nor a liberal in the US-American sense (i.e., leftist), but I do identify as an Old Liberal: I adhere staunchly to the Rousseau-Pestalozzianist school of political theory; and so I think that defense against a vague "terrorist" threat ought to stand back behind the civil liberties of the individual, behind the citizen's right to privacy and to go about their life unmolested by unwarranted show of force from the authorities' side.
Applies double when it's just a placebo measure being introduced (contemporary airport "security", CCTV surveillance, ...), and even moreso when said measure sets a precedent for totalitarianism (censorship, ...).
As far as freedom of speech -vs- discrimination goes, a line ought to be drawn where violence is being incited. Short of that, liberty always trumps animosities.
Add to that the esprit de corps, which is nearly nowhere (not even in the military) as rigid as in the police, and you get a mix nearly impossible to stand up against in trial as an individual. The only thing that can help you in these cases is media attention, but good luck mustering that; in the U.S., police enjoy a comparatively large amount of "good-will" from the media.
Going toe-to-toe with law enforcement in court is almost never a good idea.
give you your maranda rights without parent or guardian being present.
It's a Miranda warning. You have no "rights". They're just gracious enough to warn you.
(P.S.: I'm not trying to incite hatred towards the police; they have their place and do their job. But, criticism of misconduct and system-inherent problems ought to be fair game, and even high-ranking police officers are questioning the status quo.)
Firearms will not help you against a corrupt (or tyrannic) government. That made sense in the age of muskets; in this day and age, it does no longer. The only hope (purely hypothetically speaking) if you wished to violently resist tyranny would be to enlist a sizable part of your very own army's officer corps as a putschist force. Or get rich enough to buy out Blackwater & Co., by which time you'll no longer want to putsch against your administration, because you can simply buy your own laws as you please.
The only remotely sensible plan (although still wildly utopian) as I see it, would be to pool large amounts of donated money, and use this fund to hire professional lobbyists and buy citizen-friendly laws. To the tune of $200mil. you should be able to get the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. ACT (love the U.S. for these abbreviations) repealed.
Now, as far as national security versus personal liberty is concerned:
I'm neither a libertarian nor a liberal in the US-American sense (i.e., leftist), but I do identify as an Old Liberal: I adhere staunchly to the Rousseau-Pestalozzianist school of political theory; and so I think that defense against a vague "terrorist" threat ought to stand back behind the civil liberties of the individual, behind the citizen's right to privacy and to go about their life unmolested by unwarranted show of force from the authorities' side.
Applies double when it's just a placebo measure being introduced (contemporary airport "security", CCTV surveillance, ...), and even moreso when said measure sets a precedent for totalitarianism (censorship, ...).
As far as freedom of speech -vs- discrimination goes, a line ought to be drawn where violence is being incited. Short of that, liberty always trumps animosities.