Shocking!!

[Battle]

Back to the original article posted on page 1....

Do you want to live in a world where the police or government agents can pull you off the street and invade your bodily cavities in search of drugs?

Under the guise of probable cause or a drug sniffing dog alert?

Well that's where you started but not where you ended. YOU morphed it into MRAP. Make up your mind.

[blackwidow]

MRAPs are simply another symptom of the problem of unchecked authority.. it relates.

ProbableCause.jpg (36.21 KiB) Viewed 4140 times

[Battle]

MRAPs are simply another symptom of the problem of unchecked authority.. it relates.

Well I asked you 2 simple questions earlier in this thread and you really never answered either specifically so I'm going to ask another:

In a perfect world, what would be the role of law enforcement, government, and law-makers? Don't be vague, be very specific.

[blackwidow]

Battle, sorry I didn't see your question. I'll go back and look after I answer this.
First, can we agree that an internet message board is really an inadequate forum to discuss this topic with any real depth?

In a perfect world?
In my perfect world people would understand that there is no such thing as a perfect world. Humans do stupid shit all the time!

I think I have posted this here before it's called the philosophy of liberty..it's a pretty good illustration of where I am coming from. It is pretty specific.
First you have to believe in the right of self-ownership.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

So based on that...

I believe that Natural Law says that I own my life.
I do not own your life.
I own my property.
My property can be my land or my money or what I earn from the fruits of my labor. I should have the right to trade my property with anyone I choose to in a voluntary peaceful arrangement.
I have the right and the obligation to protect my life and my property from intruders and from an oppressive government.

Based on that set of beliefs I believe that the US Constitition was the best interpretation that some very smart men had at the time. (since then it has been degraded and turned on it's head) so it is obviously a flawed document.

Yet, based on the fundamentals of the original constitution AND the ideas behind Natural Law, the governments only job is to protect the individuals right to life, liberty and property.
Murder, assault, theft and fraud are infringements that I would consider a government job. Although many of these could also be enforced through private means.

That's my 10 minute version of a very complex subject.
Hope that makes sense.

[blackwidow]

An anecdotal story and another way to look at civil government..

This arm is my arm, it is not yours. Up here I have a right to strike out with it as I please. I go over there with these gentlemen and swing my arm and exercise the natural right which you have granted; I hit one man on the nose, another under the ear, and as I go down the stairs on my head, I cry out:

“Is not this a free country?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Have not I a right to swing my arm?”

“Yes, but your right to swing your arm leaves off where my right not to have my nose struck begins.”

Here civil government comes in to prevent bloodshed, adjust rights, and settle disputes.

[Battle]

Battle, sorry I didn't see your question. I'll go back and look after I answer this.
First, can we agree that an internet message board is really an inadequate forum to discuss this topic with any real depth?
No...Any place is perfect time to discuss problems. What I will agree to is everybody seems to have a vague solutions to very complex problems and most of the time when you hold their feet to the fire, the only answer they have is simply "We have a problem and I don't like the solutions that are in place" with no real solution of their own. It seems that you are no different.
In a perfect world?
In my perfect world people would understand that there is no such thing as a perfect world. Humans do stupid shit all the time!

I think I have posted this here before it's called the philosophy of liberty..it's a pretty good illustration of where I am coming from. It is pretty specific.
First you have to believe in the right of self-ownership.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

So based on that...

I believe that Natural Law says that I own my life.
I do not own your life.
I own my property.
My property can be my land or my money or what I earn from the fruits of my labor. I should have the right to trade my property with anyone I choose to in a voluntary peaceful arrangement.
I have the right and the obligation to protect my life and my property from intruders and from an oppressive government.

Based on that set of beliefs I believe that the US Constitition was the best interpretation that some very smart men had at the time. (since then it has been degraded and turned on it's head) so it is obviously a flawed document.

Yet, based on the fundamentals of the original constitution AND the ideas behind Natural Law, the governments only job is to protect the individuals right to life, liberty and property.
Murder, assault, theft and fraud are infringements that I would consider a government job. Although many of these could also be enforced through private means.

That's my 10 minute version of a very complex subject.
Hope that makes sense.

You won't be specific so I will....If it was your job to arrest someone for a crime that you deem as important, how would you enter the house? Would you knock first?

[blackwidow]

I think that aside from you disagreeing that an internet forum is an inadequate forum for an IN DEPTH discussion, I was actually very specific as to the original question you posed regarding the role of government.

Now you have moved the goalpost.

You have posed a specific situational question as to how that role would be enforced.

To which I will answer..
I believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of justice.
I believe that humans have the right to a trial before a jury of their peers and the right to face their accusers.

On that basis any law enforcement officer who steps onto private property must knock in accordance with the rights guaranteed in the fourth amendment of the constitution SInce at that point the suspect is still only a suspect. Otherwise, the officer risks himself and his own personal safety.
If I am the person inside the house (who may actually believe that I have fourth amendment rights), I may pull out my gun and shoot you thinking I am protecting my life and my property.

No knock warrants are unconstitutional. They also put everyone involved at risk and here are some news articles illustrating the risk so that I will not have to go through and type them out point by point.

They put officers at risk
http://www.westernjournalism.com/swat-t ... k-warrant/

Other controversies are outlined here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-knock_warrant

There are many alternative, sane ways to apprehend suspected criminals that still protect everyone's rights.

Now I have a some questions for you.

Do you believe in the bill of rights?

I every situation or only in certain situations?

[jonriv]

Bill of rights allows for searches with a warrant

Are you more likely to have a crime committed against you that is drug related or to get a cavity search from law enforcement?

[blackwidow]

Bill of rights allows a search warrant..not unreasonable search and seizures. Big difference.

Body cavity searches for drugs are unreasonable searches in spite of the fact that some judge is willing to issue a warrant for one.

There is no moral reason to authorize agents of the state to invade a human orifice in search of drugs.
If there is no drug war then there is no reason to hide drugs in such a manner to begin with and it would not be an issue.

The cases that I have cited are clearly unreasoned and unreasonable.

I have never been robbed or assaulted by a drug addict but I have been put into a jail cell for what police deemed as disorderly conduct exiting a rock concert in the 1980's. I dared to question them.

I have been patted down including touching my breasts and crotch area by the TSA and scanned in an x-ray machine against my will and with no warrant.
I have had my trunk searched crossing the border of AZ and CA with no probable cause.
I have had my freedom to travel infringed upon by sobriety checkpoints waiting in backed up traffic for an hour

My personal liberty has been infringed upon by the state far more than any drug addict ever has.

You jonriv are a perfect example of this.

http://youtu.be/6NcLNoxiPBk

[jonriv]

The fact that a judge issued a warrant by definition makes it reasonable. You say unchecked, but the fact they had to get a warrant makes it checked

If you don't like the tsa. Don't fly. There is no right to fly in the bill of rights. Minor inconvenience instead of having a plane flown into a building. I have been padded down twice ( once my own fault for bringing a too big bottle of fluid). I did not get mad or upset. They are doing their job. I even joked to the tsa agent after the pat down "that now he owed me dinner".