Cops dealing with people, understanding your rights...by a dude

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

It is my genuine hope, "realistic" or not, that through the efforts of people such as Kozmo, Proto, yourself, and myself, as well as countless others too numerous to mention, that we can change this. Not by fixing a closed system, but by moving us towards an open system.

This is the future and our only hope.

This requires the self discipline and the responsibility to manage an open government, an open community and an open democracy by the peoples.

It does not preclude a government, but the latter is strictly monitored by the people, not vice versa... It is a complete paradigm shift.

The people monitor the government, not the government the people.

The only way this can happen is in an open system. The only way there can be an open system is if the people make it so and manage it thus.

Once again, JPZ, you do not disappoint. Bravo! An excellent opening statement. I admit I had to go back and read it several times, to fully digest its content and wanted to take time to carefully prepare a fitting response. Though I fully expect to fall short on that.

While I do not disagree in the least with your position and your citation of the Ninth Amendment as plainly acknowledging the existence of an infinite number of unalienable rights, I do question the practicality of such. I know that sounds somewhat sanctimonious, on the surface, but let me explain.

I wonder, if each member in this thread were asked to compile a list of fifty "rights" they believe they possess, how many lists would include something another member believed to be an infringement on someone else's rights? I've always held to the notion that "one person's rights end where another's begins" and believe that to be necessary to a civilized society. Unfortunately, with almost 7 billion people on the planet, it requires great care to not transgress upon one another.

I will readily admit you have partially won me over on a person's right to use intoxicating substances that are now deemed illicit. I say partially, because I still believe that use should be limited to a location, such as a private residence, where the user's actions have no chance of putting another in danger.

As a result, as I stated in mnemeth's thread on DWI, I believe a person voluntarily and necessarily relinquishes his/her right to operate a vehicle on a public roadway, once he/she has voluntarily become impaired. To continue in the vein of driving, I believe that "licensing" is required, to ensure the drivers possess the knowledge and abilities to do so safely and within the regulations deemed essential to our society's ability to safely practice our right to travel. Absent some restrictions and regulation, what is to prevent a blind person from choosing to exercise his/her right to drive? (Though I've often wondered about the drive up ATM with Braille keypads???) What about a child? An Alzheimer's victim?

I guess a one word explanation of my position would be reasonableness. I believe that if that standard is sufficient to secure us in our "persons, houses, papers and effects", it is at least sufficient in our everyday public activities. Is it reasonable to require a certain level of regulation on activities that occur in the public and by their nature inject themselves into the paths of others? I believe so. Of course, those limitations must themselves be reasonable, as well.

Is it reasonable to demand a certain level of proficiency before a driver hits the open road, already congested beyond comprehension? I believe so. Is it reasonable to charge an exorbitant fee and require renewal, just because? No, I don't think so. Should some sort of re-examination be required, if a person demonstrates a loss of physical and/or mental ability? Sure. I believe the same standard of reasonableness is applicable to many, but not all, traffic regulations. For instance, does a person have the right to use a public roadway to move a wide load, even though it will temporarily impede other's right to travel on the same road? Yes. Is it also reasonable to restrict that use to non-peak traffic times? Again, yes.

You and Proto have already touched on the licensing of pilots. I believe you agreed, although a person has the right to operate an airliner or even a Piper Cub, it is reasonable, in the interest of the public at large, to require a "licensing" process. Perhaps, a more appropriate and descriptive term would be "certification"?

Now, how can we measure what is reasonable, with a plethora of varying opinions? I think that is accomplished through societal norms. Not what you or I believe, but society as a whole. I know, I know. This has been an extraordinarily verbose post, to wind up with "Let society decide" as a solution. But, that is as near a solution as my pea brain can come up with.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

It is easy to lose sight of what the aim is, but as Aristotle once put it, all things aim towards the greater good, and cops are no different.

What a fantastic notion! If only we could get every breathing person to strive toward that goal.

I believe all cops aim towards the greater good,

Whoa! I've worked with quite a few in my time and you are being extremely kind with that statement. A few were just there for a paycheck and a few thought they could walk on water. But, yes, most have a sincere desire for good.

Even so, in the end, it is not the badge that is worthy of respect, it is the person.

For police officers in the United States, all legislative acts have derived their authority directly from the people

I took these statements from your opening post and intentionally reversed their positions. I am adamant in my belief that everyone is deserving of respect, until such time as they demonstrate an undeserving characteristic or action. And, I believe that the first of these two quoted statements is untrue, because of the second. Indeed, the person behind the badge may tarnish it, but when it was pinned on his/her chest it shined (shone?) bright, as a symbol of the trust placed on the wearer, by the people. Without the inherent trust and respect of the people, the badge is completely worthless, no matter the character of its wearer.

reply to post by WTFover


Thank you so much, WTFover for your considered reply. Once again, you do not fail to disappoint as well. While you have asked to give you the opportunity to argue your case in the matter of practicality of rights, before I speak to your argument, allow me to speak to the language of practicality. The very use of practicality as an alternative to rights necessarily relegates rights into the realm of theory, and antithetical to what is practical. Rights are not theoretical, they are law. As such they are practical in every sense of the word.

It would be a good experiment indeed, to have each member in this thread list fifty of what they believe to be rights. It is my prediction that we would discover that some members have a misunderstanding of what rights are. There has been allusion to that all ready with some members framing freedom as doing whatever one wants to do. However, rights are not doing whatever one wants to do, and in fact, while I have the absolute right to keep and bear arms, I don't want to, and even better, I don't have to. Just because I have a right to do something doesn't mean I have to, and in some cases it doesn't mean it is prudent to do so. Just because I have a right to do something doesn't mean I should exercise that right without regard for others. This is not to say that just because in some circumstances it would be imprudent to exercise my right to commit to an action, that this imprudence negates my right to do so, or empowers government to regulate that right.

Further, I am not so certain that "one persons rights end where another persons begins" is correct. We both have the right to speak freely, and to publish freely, and my right to do so doesn't end with the beginning of your right to do so. It is not as if we have to take turns exercising this right, and if we both choose to speak freely, and this freedom of speech turns into an argument, and the argument escalates to the point where we are both screaming over each others speech, this is not a violation of another persons rights, as rude as it may be.

My right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose, but this is not the same as saying my right ends where yours begins, and the principle behind my right to swing a fist ends at the tip of your nose lies in the harm it causes if I strike you. Unless I am defending myself against harm you have made clear you intend to cause, then I do not have a right to punch you. Outside of defense, we do not have the right to cause harm. This is how we understand what rights are, not in that we claim them to be rights through reification, but we define them by the parameters of the harm not caused by that action.

I most emphatically agree that on a planet of 7 billion people we must take great care to not transgress upon one another, but even on a planet of only 7 million, or even 7 thousand, we should still take great care not to transgress upon one another. It is not as if because we have nearly 7 billion people on the planet that suddenly inalienable rights have become impractical, on the contrary, precisely because there are so many people on the planet, the only practical strategy is to take great care to respect the rights of others. If we do not learn to do this then humanity will likely self destruct. If we take the great care necessary to respect the unalienable rights of others, humanity has a real shot at expanding towards greatness only imagined. Of course, this is the kind of idea that becomes dismissed as not being "realistic", or is "Utopian", but I am not advocating any Utopia, I am advocating freedom, warts and all.

It is heartening to read your words regarding illicit substances and to know that, at least partially, I have managed to convince you that what a person does that causes no harm, they do by right. That prohibition laws only succeed in creating bigger problems and do not in any way accomplish what they are supposedly intended to do. I am not necessarily in agreement with you that people should be limited to using "illicit" substances in the privacy of their own home. Certainly people have the right to go to a saloon or pub and drink alcohol, and I can see no reason why people shouldn't have the right to go to an establishment that offers other substances for their pleasure and to enjoy that right.

In regards to mnemeth, first let me say that I have to love that guy, if for no other reason that mnemeth tends to make me look fairly moderate when it comes to rights and freedom. I am in agreement with you that people should not be driving while impaired, but I do take issue with your language once again. As you put it; "a person voluntarily and necessarily relinquishes his/her right..." My brother, people do not relinquish rights, even voluntarily so. A right is a right and it exists even when one voluntarily abstains from exercising that right, but no one, any where, ever relinquishes their rights. This is the sort of thinking that confuses the matters on what are and what are not rights. I would submit that people do not have the right to drive a vehicle while they are impaired and cannot reasonably operate the vehicle. Such reckless disregard for the rights of others is quite simply not a right. No right has been relinquished, it just doesn't exist.

However, and in fairness to mnemeth, I don't think he is arguing that people have the right to drive recklessly. What he is challenging is the arbitrary nature of legislation that has defined DUI's under a very narrow parameter, that does not take into account many factors that would otherwise reveal that the person who has been charged with a DUI is not in fact impaired to drive. Indeed, the whole DUI/DWI legislative process has moved in the direction that governments are prone to move towards, and now many legislatures are attempting to define coffee intake as yet another chemical that will impair driving. I am not arguing that in some circumstances that coffee does not impair the ability to drive, what I am arguing is that arbitrary legislation regulating this type of behavior is pointless, and accomplishes nothing more than aggregation of power and revenue. It does not protect people, nor does it prevent reckless driving.

Licensing schemes do not ensure that people possess the knowledge and ability to perform a certain action, and in terms of driving, I not only know "licensed" drivers who have little knowledge of the vehicle they are operating, but have a very limited ability to drive that vehicle and yet, they were issued a license. I also know plenty of people, police officers included, who will drive so recklessly, and with such disregard for others, it boggles the mind. During my tenure as a bartender, I came to know plenty of police officers who I was proud to call my friend, but just because they were my friends, some of those police officers were idiots after closing when they would insist I hang out with them and have a few more beers. They would not only drive recklessly and under the influence, they would assume that my problem with their reckless driving was due to law enforcement and insist that because they were cops no legal harm would come from their actions. Oh brother!

As to your questions regarding children, blind people, and Alzheimer victims driving, I would remind you that people do not have the right, unless as defense, to harm others. It is not licensing schemes and legislation that dictates a child cannot drive a vehicle, it is the law itself that dictates this. However, the licensing schemes and legislative process arbitrarily decide at what age a child is allowed to obtain a license to drive, which appears to be in most states, if not all, at the age of 16 years old. However, if a child of 14 years old can demonstrate an ability and knowledge of driving that makes clear that this 14 year old is not reckless in their driving, then why should they be denied their right to drive? What is the principle behind 16 years old? Of course, parents have the right to raise their children in the manner that they see fit, provided they are not harming that child, and if a parent say's no driving until the age of 16, then this is their right to do so.

The blind person is a different example. Does the blind person "relinquish" their right to keep and bear arms just because they are blind? That blind person does not have the right to harm others, and prudence would dictate that a blind person grabbing a gun and firing it indiscriminately in the direction he chooses is reckless and not a right. That does not mean this blind person relinquished the right to keep and bear arms, and as technology advances, there may come a time when a blind person can use a gun with the same amount of accuracy as seeing person, and in the meantime that blind person still retains his/her right to keep and bear arms. Technology may at some point facilitate the driving of blind people so that such an act will cause no harm, but until that day, a blind person behind the wheel of an automobile is an action that by its nature is reckless. The same goes for people with Alzheimer. These people never relinquished any rights. They never had the right to drive recklessly.

This is the practicality of it. If a blind person, or an Alzheimer victim can operate an automobile without driving recklessly, then what they do, they do by right. All the traffic regulations in place, at least those that are intended to facilitate the rights of everyone, not impede them, need no licensing scheme in order to have validity, and certainly the registration scheme where a person surrenders their bill of sale of the vehicle they purchased in exchange for a title of registration is not at all necessary in order to have valid traffic regulations. The valid traffic regulations are not a regulation of a right, they are the regulation of traffic. The same goes for parking ordinances. No one has the right to park in a manner that impedes a persons right of way, or a businesses right to do business. This should be the purpose of parking ordinances. The effort to protect the rights of all people, no more, no less.

To use your one word explanation, that being reasonableness, I can see no unreasonableness to my explanations of rights, and how they work. We are obviously in agreement of certain public regulation, for example traffic, as being reasonable. It is not reasonable because this regulation is a regulation of the right to drive, and it is certainly not reasonable because state legislatures have declared driving to be a state granted privilege and not a right, the regulation of traffic is reasonable because such regulation is intended to facilitate the right to drive, not impede it.

Your example of hauling a wide load on public roads is a great example of rights and their practicality. If a wide load is impeding traffic, it is causing a demonstrable harm to other peoples right to drive, and as such people do not have the right to do this. If a wide load is using the roads at a time when traffic is not being impeded, then no harm is caused, and that person hauls this wide load by right. Here is the problem with licensing schemes, is that they are privileges, and too often people will be granted a privilege at the expense of other peoples rights. This is not okay, and government does not have the lawful authority to grant such a privilege.

The argument that what is reasonable can be ascertained through "social norms" is a fallacy. For the Southern States in the beginning of the United States of America, it was, arguably, a "social norm" that slavery was a valid form of economics. It was a majority of people, and in some cases just a minority of people, running roughshod over the rights of individuals. Slavery is, as it always has been, unreasonable, regardless of the "social norm" that accepts it as a valid form of economy. If an action causes no harm outside of defense, then it is a reasonable action regardless of what the "social norm" say's about it. "Social norm" is a sociological term that hopes to describe in general a general attitude and culture of a particular society. In my work as a tutor, I have recently tutored a student through his Introduction to Sociology class. In fact, I have created a thread that largely speaks to sociology, and the indoctrination of academia in general. The text book this student was required to use defined law as "governmental social control". It was a definition that was causing problems for this student, until he concluded that this definition was false. Upon concluding this, he accepted that in order to answer "correctly" on any test asking what law was, that he would have to answer in the way the book defined it, but he used his own critical thinking skills, along with my guidance pointing him towards literature and doctrines that refuted this definition, to know that just because he was being indoctrinate it didn't mean he had to accept the indoctrination as fact.

This text book spent a great deal of time discussing "social norms" and the author was clearly of the mind that a current "social norm" was that drinking alcohol was not accepted as a part of that "social norm". He made no distinction between drunkenness and drinking alcohol, simply asserted that drinking alcohol was not a social norm and that when mass media glorifies drinking alcohol they are failing in their role as an "enforcer of social norms". This is indoctrination, but is not a reasonable description of the social attitude towards drinking. It is arguable that the "social norm" regarding drinking and driving was more lax at a point in history than it is today. Regardless of societies attitudes towards drinking and driving, if that action becomes reckless driving, it is not, nor has it ever been a right. This, in my estimation, is a reasonable understanding of rights.

You brought a smile to my face when you responded to my citation of Aristotle's assertion that all things aim towards the greater good. I agree with you that we would all be better off if people understood this, and put more effort in perfecting their aim. You also suggested I was being too kind to police officers in general because I asserted that they all aim towards the greater good. I respectfully disagree. I was not being kind, simply practical. All people aim towards the greater good, this is not the problem. The problem lies in their aim. For those who have an accurate aim, the greater good is easier to accomplish. For those whose aim is less than accurate, the greater good is not so easily accomplished. Just as the blind person with a gun I spoke to earlier will have a difficult time hitting a bulls eye on a target, the ethically blind will have a problem hitting their mark when they aim towards the greater good. I was not being kind to police officers, and spoke to that aim, and suggested that most police officers have far better aim with a gun than with the greater good.

I will accept your defense of symbols and what they mean to people, in this context the symbol of the badge of law enforcement. In the end, we agree on far more than we disagree, and that my brother, is a good thing. Thank you for contributing to this thread. It is always a genuine pleasure to read your words, and I am as equally proud to be on the same team as you, as I am with Proto.
,

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

It would be a good experiment indeed, to have each member in this thread list fifty of what they believe to be rights. It is my prediction that we would discover that some members have a misunderstanding of what rights are.

Though this might shock quite a few, and give many pause to consider, wonder and even worry, I can truly but list one right I believe I do have.

1. To do anything I want at any time I want in any place I want should I so choose to do, knowing full well I assume all risks, liabilities and rewards or awards for that action.

I conversely believe you and everyone else has the right, to do what ever you want, and indeed to respond to what ever extent you can and or feel capable, prudent or desirble to me exercising my right in any given specific situation, to do precisely what I want.

All is fair in love and war.

I think where a lot of people tragically err that works into the hands of the police state, is that belief that not only could I not be fully trusted to wisely exercise that right, but that I should not be trusted, that I will just go around, raping, murdering and stealing.

Yet in almost every case that's the furthest thing from the truth as the vast majority of people are not desirous of doing those things, yet the truth is the pro police state argument would have you believe everyone and anyone would be running around, raping, murdering and stealing, except for the advocate of the police state claiming that.

I have the right to do anything I want, it's my life, everyone else has a right to do so too and or try to stop me.

I truly believe that, there is just one right, and it says a lot about us as a species, as a community, as a world that we absolutely do not trust one another to do what is right.

Talk about a lack of self esteem!

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Ummm..........I think that all rights wether enumerated or not, are.....within.......the framework of your "singular" right. That being said, It can only "realistically", (there's that word again) function in any society greater than...one...if the right "to do whatever one whilst, whenever, wherever, with whomever", does no harm to any other........Aleister Crowley succinctly stated, "Do what thou whilst", "that is the whole of the law", however, he also went on to state that within the confines of such, that one "do no harm".
I'm certain that, is where you were going with your, singular....right.

YouSir

reply to post by YouSir


In all reality I must confess I might be out on occassion to break a heart or two, and have likewise been known to hurt some people's feelings as well!

Harm in many cases becomes a matter of perspective and subjective hence we have the Police State where millions of people are incarcerated for vices and in essence moral crimes where the actual harm is simply subject to moral interpretation of others.

Does it harm you if I blow my day's wages on a friendly game of cards, or by indulging someone plying the world's second oldest profession?

Really it doesn't, but because it harm's the notions of morality and propriety some people have, and the state finds it hard to profit off such unregulated vices that are not taxed, the perception of harm, becomes an enforcable reality in the minds of people who want to insist they have been harmed even though in reality no they haven't.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


I was not considering morality, when I spoke of harm, I was speaking to intent and consequence as per harm in a more physical and psycholigical nature. Those seeking offense are childish, if one is overly offended or slighted, by anothers choice to enjoy their "do what thou wilt", provided that it does not harm another, perhaps need to consider why they would....seek.....to be offended.
Another consideration might be how unintended consequences are born of intent....the, reaction, that follows action. If one.....chooses.....to not consider consequence, they do not abbrogate responsability...for...consequence.
If you choose to, gamble away your paycheck, you harm only yourself......unless.....through that action you then neglect to, say, feed your child, or provide shelter for a family unit. If you have no contractual obligations that might be harmed by your decision, then you have harmed no one.
If you choose to have relations with a prostitute, then enjoy, however, if through your actions you transmit an STD, especially, one that debilitates or harms your partner, then consequence, demands responsability, and ownership. The same could be said for a pregnancy.
Essentially, if one does as he/she wilt, then one owns a higher consideration and understanding of causation, in order that one "does no harm", and if harm ensues from weakness or accident, then ownership of that situation, is essential, in an open society.

YouSir

Tomorrow I a fighting a no proof of insurance ticket but the is the infuritating part is that it was in the car I found it after the fact on the floor in front of the passenger seat when I got home. and if I had been given two minutes to go through the papers on the floor I would have found it.

The not so nice man in blue would not let me go to my car and get it. (it is all on dashboard cam if I can get a copy )

This ticket I was given is just as wrong as a LEO breaking your tailight wth his nightstick and they issung citation for a broken tailight.

They create problems at are not there for revinue generation an to boost their overinflated egos.

For some reason the ticket state to appear at Bellflower Superior Court and when showed up to fight it it I found out that I have to go to Compton Sperior court. How can a judge in one city preside over a case in another?.


Our system is so corrupt it is unbeliveable.