The Philadelphia Police are being sued by The ACLU, for violating citizens' rights by the implementation and use of their "Stop and Frisk" Policy. The tactic, designed to reduce the amount of guns and other weapons being carried illegally on city streets, has been used in Philly and in other large American cities, including New York City. Mayor Nutter promised to implement such a plan when he ran for office. Commissioner Ramsey did indeed implement the policy when he took the lead of the department. At issue with the ACLU is whether of not it is a violation of citizens' right to be secure and protected against unreasonable searches.
Obviously our right to not be subject to Unreasonable Search (or Seizure) has some history. The 4th Amendment to The Constitution gives us this right. When the amendment, and the rest of the Bill or Rights were ratified, our country was fresh off the heels of independence. Just a few years before the Bill of Rights, we were British subjects. British troops (Law Enforcement) commonly searched people private property for evidence. The soldiers needed no reason, no "probable cause", no justification whatsoever. They pretty much did what they wanted. This pissed off Americans, who decided that one of the protections they would provide to the citzens of their new country would be this freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. (see Amendments one through 10 for a full list of what pissed off our forefathers)
Anyway, the ACLU must have been tired of trying to tear down war memorials, supporting Nazi rallies, fighting to free terrorists from U.S. prisons, and freeing murderers. Now they are trying to make city streets more dangerous. By doing so, somehow, they'd say that they are "protecting us".
The bottom line is this: We live in a violent world. Although that is unfortunate, it is also reality. In order for the government to establish some sort of safety, we have to give something back. I, personally, have nothing (ok very little) to hide. If I happen to be walking down the street in North Philadelphia (probably won't ever happen) I have no issue with a police officer stopping me and checking me for weapons. But apparently, city residents, including a buffoon of a state legislator, does take issue with it. (read article in Phila Inquirer here)
more to come. .
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I usually agree with you, but here is one time where I really disagree. Sure, the ACLU is a pain in the ass and they represent scum. But that's because the scum is where our constitutionally-protected freedom gets tested. I couldn't disagree more with you blanket statement about "we have to give something back", either. By granting a commission for officers to carry deadly force; by giving them authorization to stop and search with a warrant; by licensing weapons, drivers privileges, and a host of other things. But there is supposed to be a clear line about what's allowed, and the constitution (not any individual's common sense) is that clear line.
ReplyDeleteAnyhow, I think I probably do agree with you that it's reasonable to check for weapons. It's a little hard to get past the "hell, this constitutional protection is irrelevant/its necessary to sacrifice privacy for safety/the ACLU is evil/that legislator is a buffoon" rant.
Thanks for the moment John. Yes I did make blanket statements. I'll concede that often, "the scum" as you put it, is where we are tested. And I'll concede that the ACLU serves a purpose. BUT, we give up protections and get new ones very day. Furthermore, there are no clear lines. Our rights are ultimately decided by nine people (supreme court). All one beads to do is a little constitutional history , see Plessy v Ferguson (or a few dozen others) to realize that "common sense" rarely prevails and the constitution is interpreted one way today and another tomorrow, The "living document" that it is.
ReplyDeleteThanks for reading. I guess my point is really that Philadelphia had 300+ murders last year for a reason, an I dont think the good citizens can afford that type of "constitutional protection"
More to come in later posts!
Meant to type thanks for the comment, not moment. My fingers are too big for my iPhone!
ReplyDeleteThey're just checking for weapons. I don't see how anyone can argue with it. They should do the same thing in Coatesville, Chester, Reading, etc... You might think differently if you lived there John Young. Just sayin'.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment, anonymous. Ben Franklin, the country's first and biggest liberal, said,"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” He was also the countrys first and biggest drunk.
ReplyDeleteI prefer the words of science-fiction writer Robert Heilnlein, “You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.”
I'm not sayin, I'm just sayin.
Ok, I'm Pro Se & 1-1 in Federal Court but, "Probable Cause" what's that mean gentlemen?
ReplyDelete