Whats the punchline of both arguments (I do have a position on this):
- One side believes that "most cops are good" and that there is a justifyable amount that the Constitution should be violated so that a level of safety can be provided to the general population
- The other side believes that the Constitution is absolute, that the government, especially in the last 6 years has grown exponentially and that we need to draw a line, even if it comes at the expense of making sacrifices in the perceived "guarantee of safety"
This boils down to individual POLITICAL beliefs in the role of government and what level of "revisionist thinking" is appropriate for the Constitution. Those with left leaning tendencies, will be more in favor of allowing for the "lowest common denominator" in society by granting government and law enforcement entities greater authority to accommodate the lowest rung of society. This is the premise that "government solves our problems". The vast majority of Americans are "centrist right" saying that they do believe in a limited government but understand the practical sacrifice between safety and our constitutionally protected freedoms. Then there is the constitutionalist, libertarian approach which resonates with myself and many here (who support the kid).
Personally I am a Constitutionalist and a Libertarian. I am not shy or soft-spoken about this. I believe that those serving in government and law enforcement have SWORN an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States (from enemies foreign and domestic - government oath). I recognize that this country is just borders and people without the Constitution and it is the single most unique document created in history that guarantees individual liberty, and limited government - the results of which have spurred more prosperity and freedom than any other source in world history. Diluting Constitutional principles through revisionist interpretation under the premise that its a "sacrifice" between safety/common good (aka socialism) and liberty is more than a slipperty slope, its downright dangerous. As a society we already have more laws than Communist China, and this dangerous way of thinking always kills freedom, albeit slowly....like death through a thousand papercuts. First its the TSA, now its the NSA spying on our every move, and conversation. We embarked down this "slippery slope" with the progresssive presidents establishing the federal income tax, the central banks under the guise of the "common good". In the last six years its the common good of healthcare, the financial system, terrorism, etc. It never ends. This style of unconstitutional thinking has the government and LE monitoring every facet of our lives. We can make arguments that the "police are just trying to do their job", but their job is to protect the law of the land...not simply to "stop crime at any price". Saying that you shouldnt refuse a search because it makes you look guilty is the exact reason that the Constitution and the fourth amendmnet makes provisions for searches to be refused. Looking through history, saying that "refusing a search" makes you look guilty and grants LE "probably cause" is the equivalent of giving governent and LE "free reign" and effectively abolishing the fourth amendment. Lets say officer who knocks on your door asks to search your entire home and even do a body cavity search of you and your spouse. You refuse. They use the refusal as "probable cause" to create a new interpretation of the Exclusionary Clause and circumvent your 4th Amendment rights. This is EXACTLY the same thing that the Spanish Inquisition did in the 13th century when someone denyed the inquisition. This effectively neuters our freedoms. Sure, it makes the job of the police officer harder...no one guaranteed them an "easy job". Sure it comes at the sacrifice of some safety. I personally believe society has become somewhat weak, and now leans on the "government teat" rather than understanding that "freedom isnt free" and that we all, collectively have a duty to protect the values that made this country great....none of which were a police state and a big government.
I agree. And to add to that sentiment I think basically most of these arguments can be broken down into two categories.
1. What are and what should LE in this country be.
2. What your rights are as an American Citizen.
-"Don't judge the whole by the few" = LE cannot have this viewpoint. It is such an extreme position of power, that there must not be any tolerance for unacceptable behavior. At any costs, police cannot become a fear squad, even if it is a minority of the force. LE must be held to a higher standard. Equating standards for a LE officer and say a cars salesman or a bus boy cannot be accepted.
-"Haters want cops when they are in trouble" = Damn right, our tax dollars pay for that service. Does the fact that LE officers have a dangerous job give them the right to be rude or arrogant? No, they are willingly performing a service for which they are paid. You can argue whether LE's are under or over paid, nonetheless, they are still voluntarily performing a service for which they accept payment in return. Some police, of which I have had interactions with, do seem to take the "higher than thou" mentality which does reflect back on the whole (see note above).
-I agree it is best to always start with a polite approach. I try and take a polite and courteous approach with everyone in every interaction I have, but sometimes that approach does not always work nor is the best application. Furthermore, being polite to an LE Officer does not guarantee the LE Officer to return the same courtesy, but it usually doesn't hurt.
-Was the person in the video prodding the officer's reaction? Yes, but the officer did provide the reaction so it does prove his intent. Do the end justify the kid's actions...no. But along the same lines, LE cannot break due process either even though they "probably" know when someone is in the wrong.
-"Always consent to a search" = This is the completely wrong mentality to take. Do I consent to a search when I fly, yes but only because I have no other alternative and many times driving is not an option for me. Other than that, I see virtually no reason to willingly consent to a search.
-"Have no right to complain if you don't try and change things" = How in any rationale does that affect ones rights guaranteed by the Constitution. If I don't want my rights to change then other than voting for a politician who will fight to protect those rights, I have no requirement to do anything. That is why the Constitutional Amendment process was purposely made so extremely difficult and why there as so few amendments. Now, yes one can always go further and be more active to only help their cause yes, but because one is not politically involved equating to losing rights is a non-starter.
-Personally, I do not believe DUI check points should be legal. I completely agree with the intent. I do not want anyone driving under any influence to put my family or yours in further danger, but I do believe they skip a serious component of probably cause. To equate a DUI check point with an international border crossing checkpoint is also illogical. Those coming in from outside of America (citizen or not) do not have the same rights as a person traveling within our borders. Yes, even as a citizen, by leaving the US borders you concede some rights upon your return at your return point. Taking another step, I do believe similarly that when you enter the country on an international flight, you should be subject to scans, background checks, profiling, etc. Interstate travel I believe though should be a different process requiring a much lighter security process with less Constitutional infringement. Now this does leave the rationale that a terrorist could still enter, or come from within our borders and procure a weapon to take on a interstate flight, but no process is perfect and this could be argued around and around.
Is there grey area? Yes, always and always will be unless we give up all rights and turn to "1984" society. To Chris and the original video, I completely understand your logic and sometimes even take the same approach. In general I do agree with the sentiment the the LE community in this country does tend act like bullies and take too many liberties. Does it mean that all officers are bad...no, and I'm sure those that are on this board are probably more well rounded individuals which more than likely makes them less prone to these tendencies.
