reply to post by mishigas
I do realize a certain level of public danger warrants forcing a change of behaviour. An obvious example would be someone pointing a gun at you and
saying "I think I just may shoot you". That would certainly be dangerous and warrant someone stopping it from happening in public. Technically people
have not been harmed yet in such a case, but you can be reasonably sure that you wil be harmed without stopping that from happening. On the other
hand, if you go to a kids soccer game and see a guy chugging vodka, I think its wrong to say you have a reasonable expectation that someone will get
hurt from that. It is not a dangerous activity except for the guy risking alcohol poisoning.
There are unlimited number of things that may be considered dangerous and an unlimited number of things people don't like to see in public, and that
is why so much as *starting* the list is tyrannical. In many public places you cannot have alcohol. But the list is allowed to keep growing until
there is only water, fruit juice, and vegetable juice left since all other options may be determined to be "junk food and therefore dangerous". Hey!
You are not drinking a Monsanto-approved juice! You're under arrest!". That is the precedent set when you say its okay to tell people what they can
and cannot put inside their own bodies in a public place.
If you want a law saying "doing anything that is X level of endangerment to others is illegal" then that makes sense. That way you stop discriminating
against people's personal choices is by letting the facts speak for them self in court. Then when the trial goes to jury regarding that, they can put
a few things on a chart and decide where X falls on that chart. If X is over the danger limit, then it was dangerous. That makes ever so much sense
vs. making a rule like "no alcohol in public places" which is actually unenforceable given if a guy wants to drink a Jim Beam at a kids soccer game
he'll just put the Jim Beam in a soda can.
So, any other system than "doing anything over endangerment level X" is illegal" also opens up another can of tyranny because people can so easily
skirt around laws they don't agree with. For example, if they want a shot of Jim Beam at a school stadium they as I mentioned could put it in a soda
container. So then the tyrannical people will want yet more rules about for example making it a crime to put alcohol into an unlabelled container. And
you could go on forever and keep making more and more laws making such a thing more difficult.
Regarding your courtroom point, the fact is we have certain limits of what you can and cannot do in court. It is very good to know as precisely as
possible what you can and can't do in court. And we don't know that until the limits are tested. Thanks to heros like Sam Dodson who test such limits,
we now know the courtroom system is an unmitigated tyranny because you can't even remain silent without spending at two months in jail. So, people
should test the limits and the judges should better appreciate those efforts. When a test case is something a judge agrees with they are often very
happy to have received that case. In Burke's case it was only bad to him because remaining silent was something he didn't agree with. Had he agreed
with that concept, there would have been no indefinite trial announced and he would appreciate Sam's efforts.
Authority should be questioned regularly, and the limits of authority should regularly be tested when they are not known. That is good for society
because we should know where the limits are of what we can and cannot do with a good level of certainty. Uncertainty is bad in the justice system
because it results in chaos, which is what we have now in the justice system. The reason its important to question authority is that sometimes
authority is wrong and sometimes authority is tyrannical.
Trials actually are supposed to be public events both legally and ethically speaking. That is very clear in the US constitution and also the New
Hampshire state constitution. The reason for that is simple: accountability. Judges must remain accountable for their actions and that can only happen
with public access to trials. The only person who has a right to close the trial to public should be the defendant since that is who public access is
designed to protect. So for example public access to a juvenile trial should be controlled by the parent, not by the judge.
US courtrooms are a place of complete chaos for a number of reasons. People who put courtrooms to the test are the first step in correcting that
edit on 27-9-2011 by seachange because: forgot spell check!