|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 26, 2010 9:33:02 GMT -5
that line has never been static . . . it constantly moves, century to century, generation to generation, election to election. the goal is to have it move slowly, and/or to keep it within certain parameters so that despots and tyrants cannot rule with impunity . . . so that a Hitler or a Mao or a Lenin does not take leadership. which means that we must constantly speak out, and hold our leaders to account. I feel fortunate we live in a sociiety that promotes this kind of accountability. I just wish we, as a society, were more consistent about holding our leadership accountable. I think the 'fear factor' BC refers to is caused by many factors one of which, in a small way, a residual of a very apathetic attitude we have that varies from province to province. I can't speak anyone else, but I found that Ontario is a very apathetic province with an extremely short memory and prevents us from taking action and moving forward. That's just me, though. I don't know what we can do about an over-zealous cop, though. On the surface it looks as if he was 'afraid' of something. Maybe it's the negative connotation associated with seeing an exposed machete (like I was suggesting to HA). And even if it wasn't that, it looks as if he was definitely afraid of something ... maybe the Habs car flag deep in enemy territory? ;D All that said, it also sounds like HA educated the guy anyway and that might be to the cop's benefit. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Jul 26, 2010 9:36:01 GMT -5
.... but I'd rather a cop stop someone with backup and question why someone is carrying something than to just brush it off. In H.A.'s scenario, the man was ALREADY stopped and in a prone position. The cop HAD occassion to safely interrogate what HE deemed a suspicious civilian. Heck, he could have even asked the man to accompany him back into his cruiser ( a temporary mini-jail-cell)to "CPIC" the man's D.L. . Why let the man go only to turn around and RE-DETAIN with an ARMY of more police-officers!? I'd be livid. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jul 26, 2010 11:05:45 GMT -5
Just some thoughts.... If that police officer was your father/son/nephew/cousin/close friend, would you want him to take any unnecesary risk out there? I'm reminded of the pull-over of a pickup truck earlier this year in rural Ontario. Const. Vu Pham was responding to a domestic dispute call....but it's uncertain whether or not the pull-over was directly related. Article He left behind a wife and three children. Sure, the machete is no match for a gun.....but like I said, machetes have been involved in crimes....and how is the officer supposed to know whether or not a firearm is being concealed as well in such an instance? Hyper-caution is the name of the game, and I can't say as I fault it. We go through this life once as far as we know....so why risk dying prematurely of a preventable occurence? Related ArticleThe shooter, Fred Preston, 70, (who later died in hospital of his wounds) was your typical "quiet man" who had apparently "lost all hope" in trying to win back his estranged wife, who had admitted to being unfaithful. Rare occurence? Yes. But the lesson is simple....if it has happened...it can happen again. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 26, 2010 11:37:09 GMT -5
Sure, the machete is no match for a gun.....but like I said, machetes have been involved in crimes ....and how is the officer supposed to know whether or not a firearm is being concealed as well in such an instance? Well, at the risk of being repititious, I suggested that something other than the machete may have caused the officer to react the way he did. Maybe he's just come through 'a tough one' and he felt he needed backup. I also talked about a kind of negativity that some people associate with a machete. I have friends who were in Rwanda just after the genocide of 1994. Ask what a machete means to them. I'm not saying these cops were exposed to the same circumstances as some of my friends were, but maybe ... just maybe, there's a reason for him reacting the way he did. Past experiences or a lack of experience? Don't know. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 26, 2010 11:59:45 GMT -5
Again, why in hell did he need "back-up" in order to further "investigate/interrogate/etc"? He's got a machete - you've got a 9mm. He's crouched-down - you're standing and approaching with caution and at-the-ready. He's a civilian - you're a highly-trained law enforcement officer. Why the need to call-in backup!!?? Ohhh....I forgot to mention the big sign back there...... "I'M FREDDY KRUGERS COUSIN". Aside from seeing guns unholsters while staring at me, it wasn't a "frightening" experience. It took a few seconds to think through what the hell this was all about and I figured that he must of seen the machete and over-reacted. It certainly couldn't be about those sandals I accidentally walked off with in NJ, back in the 70's. Funny thing, we were "buddies" by the time they left. Although I wonder, were we 5 white budddies? This thing started to annoy me more days after it happened. The principle/rights of the incident is more important then the incident. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 26, 2010 12:18:12 GMT -5
Hyper-caution is the name of the game, and I can't say as I fault it. We go through this life once as far as we know....so why risk dying prematurely of a preventable occurence? "Hyper-caution" does not mix well with rights. Just like "safety", we can't use it as an excuse to trample on everyones rights. We have to trade a degree of danger to ourselves and those who protect us in order to be free from what can easily be a quasi police state. I lived under one of those and NO THANK YOU. I hate to say this, but I will....do we want to have big brother knowing were we surf in the name of looking for pedophiles? Is the life of one child worth the snooping of an entire society? Do we strip search millions of people so we can find that one nut case with a bomb? Where is the line? |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jul 26, 2010 12:31:32 GMT -5
Simply, the difficulty is defining one. There's no broad line because there can't be. Civil liberties exist at the whim of over-cautiousness, I agree. I also agree that your stop-and-search was likely over the line, but mostly in the manner in which is was conducted -- not that it happened. I think the officer was well within the realm of protection of society if he had asked what the machete was for. All that being said, I would argue that creating a definite line is next to impossible unless it's all-or-nothing. Out of curiosity (and you may have answered this already), have you filed a complaint? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 26, 2010 12:32:40 GMT -5
I'm not saying these cops were exposed to the same circumstances as some of my friends were, but maybe ... just maybe, there's a reason for him reacting the way he did. Past experiences or a lack of experience? Don't know. Cheers. Regardless of experience, rights take precident. I would love to sit down with these guys and go through the scenario. I doubt that any of them will admit that they handle this scenario differently from what they would handle other scenario (race) and I doubt any of them would see the rights of the individual takes precident over their safety. Imagine what would happen if I said..."you need a court order to search my van". Would it be a 10 minute barbecue or a day affair? Or a week affair and thousand in lawyers? I have detail satellite photos, topo maps and electrical grid pattern on those computers. All of a sudden, could I be a terrorist mastermind? For safety, now I encrypted all the satellite shots and grid patterns. Oh wait, does that mean I have something to hide? . |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 26, 2010 12:44:13 GMT -5
Simply, the difficulty is defining one. There's no broad line because there can't be. Civil liberties exist at the whim of over-cautiousness, I agree. I also agree that your stop-and-search was likely over the line, but mostly in the manner in which is was conducted -- not that it happened. I think the officer was well within the realm of protection of society if he had asked what the machete was for. All that being said, I would argue that creating a definite line is next to impossible unless it's all-or-nothing. Out of curiosity (and you may have answered this already), have you filed a complaint? No. Only because it will be useless. On the other hand, I'm sure they now have record somewhere of stopping me for suspicion of carrying a deadly weapon. What I like to do is sue them to hell and back but I no longer have the income I use to have. I am semi-retired and I 'm not spending silly amounts of money to win on principle, which at best, will be on page 39 of the subway paper. And yes, if he just asked me, it would of ended there and then and I wouldn't be so cranky. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 26, 2010 13:29:35 GMT -5
I'm not saying these cops were exposed to the same circumstances as some of my friends were, but maybe ... just maybe, there's a reason for him reacting the way he did. Past experiences or a lack of experience? Don't know. Cheers. Regardless of experience, rights take precident. No objections here buds. I think you did the right thing regardless, HA. I think the whole scenario relates to the paranoia BC alludes to that is so prevalent in our society now. I don't necessarily believe everything Michael Moore promotes, but he was right on a few things; one in particular. On both "Bowling for Colombine" and "Farenheit 9/11" Moore was bang-on when he described how governments use fear and paranoia as control tools. This officer you're speaking of might be a reflection of that. There's a lot more to it than just what I said, but I don't have the time right now. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jul 26, 2010 13:59:59 GMT -5
Mark Steyn on government video cameras in England: Your family is being watched[/color] I thought this line would appeal to HA... Henry Porter’s new novel The Dying Light is set mainly in an English market town in Shropshire that feels as claustrophobic as Communist East Germany, a land in which rural coppers badger you for such amorphous offences as “failing to account for your intentions in a designated area.” |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jul 26, 2010 14:49:56 GMT -5
Hyper-caution is the name of the game, and I can't say as I fault it. We go through this life once as far as we know....so why risk dying prematurely of a preventable occurence? "Hyper-caution" does not mix well with rights. Just like "safety", we can't use it as an excuse to trample on everyones rights. We have to trade a degree of danger to ourselves and those who protect us in order to be free from what can easily be a quasi police state. I lived under one of those and NO THANK YOU. I hate to say this, but I will....do we want to have big brother knowing were we surf in the name of looking for pedophiles? Is the life of one child worth the snooping of an entire society? Do we strip search millions of people so we can find that one nut case with a bomb? Where is the line? Valid points, HA. We certainly don't want such a heightened fear/suspicion level that our police force is trigger-happy. I think we're a ways from that yet....and I'm sure they're always looking to improve ways of handling various situations. I'm not saying hyper-caution should supercede/tample rights. But if this officer was on extra alert for any reason....well, it's human nature to protect oneself. Still...they're the trained professionals..... Did they offer any explanation for the backup and unholstered guns? Did they apologize for causing undue stress? (sorry if you've already explained this). |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 26, 2010 16:32:34 GMT -5
Again, why in hell did he need "back-up" in order to further "investigate/interrogate/etc"? He's got a machete - you've got a 9mm. He's crouched-down - you're standing and approaching with caution and at-the-ready. He's a civilian - you're a highly-trained law enforcement officer. Why the need to call-in backup!!?? Witnesses, so no one claims police harassment or police brutality ... especially so if there was an APB out for someone with machete related crimes, it could escalate. Two cops with 9mm are better than one, if the machete gets a lucky slice in ... |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 26, 2010 16:43:11 GMT -5
Hyper-caution is the name of the game, and I can't say as I fault it. We go through this life once as far as we know....so why risk dying prematurely of a preventable occurence? "Hyper-caution" does not mix well with rights. Just like "safety", we can't use it as an excuse to trample on everyones rights. We have to trade a degree of danger to ourselves and those who protect us in order to be free from what can easily be a quasi police state. I lived under one of those and NO THANK YOU. I hate to say this, but I will....do we want to have big brother knowing were we surf in the name of looking for pedophiles? Is the life of one child worth the snooping of an entire society? Do we strip search millions of people so we can find that one nut case with a bomb? Where is the line? I disagree .... rights do get taken away for hyper-caution all the time ... Airport security is Exhibit A |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 26, 2010 16:45:54 GMT -5
Imagine what would happen if I said..."you need a court order to search my van". Would it be a 10 minute barbecue or a day affair? Or a week affair and thousand in lawyers? I have detail satellite photos, topo maps and electrical grid pattern on those computers. All of a sudden, could I be a terrorist mastermind? For safety, now I encrypted all the satellite shots and grid patterns. Oh wait, does that mean I have something to hide? . They wouldnt have needed a search warrant .... they already saw the machete and had probable cause to search for other weapons. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 26, 2010 18:38:26 GMT -5
Imagine what would happen if I said..."you need a court order to search my van". Would it be a 10 minute barbecue or a day affair? Or a week affair and thousand in lawyers? I have detail satellite photos, topo maps and electrical grid pattern on those computers. All of a sudden, could I be a terrorist mastermind? For safety, now I encrypted all the satellite shots and grid patterns. Oh wait, does that mean I have something to hide? . They wouldnt have needed a search warrant .... they already saw the machete and had probable cause to search for other weapons. My very expensive criminal lawyer said they didn't for the reasons I pointed out in another post. On the other hand, if you're cheaper, I'll hire you. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 26, 2010 18:39:56 GMT -5
"Hyper-caution" does not mix well with rights. Just like "safety", we can't use it as an excuse to trample on everyones rights. We have to trade a degree of danger to ourselves and those who protect us in order to be free from what can easily be a quasi police state. I lived under one of those and NO THANK YOU. I hate to say this, but I will....do we want to have big brother knowing were we surf in the name of looking for pedophiles? Is the life of one child worth the snooping of an entire society? Do we strip search millions of people so we can find that one nut case with a bomb? Where is the line? I disagree .... rights do get taken away for hyper-caution all the time ... Airport security is Exhibit A Read the link I supplied and why border/plane searches are treated differently. |
|
|
|
Post by HABsurd on Jul 26, 2010 18:56:27 GMT -5
You know, none of this would have happened if you would stop wearing your Dryden goalie mask. He retired long ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 26, 2010 20:05:03 GMT -5
"Hyper-caution" does not mix well with rights. Just like "safety", we can't use it as an excuse to trample on everyones rights. We have to trade a degree of danger to ourselves and those who protect us in order to be free from what can easily be a quasi police state. I lived under one of those and NO THANK YOU. I hate to say this, but I will....do we want to have big brother knowing were we surf in the name of looking for pedophiles? Is the life of one child worth the snooping of an entire society? Do we strip search millions of people so we can find that one nut case with a bomb? Where is the line? Valid points, HA. We certainly don't want such a heightened fear/suspicion level that our police force is trigger-happy. I think we're a ways from that yet....and I'm sure they're always looking to improve ways of handling various situations. I'm not saying hyper-caution should supercede/tample rights. But if this officer was on extra alert for any reason....well, it's human nature to protect oneself. Still...they're the trained professionals..... Did they offer any explanation for the backup and unholstered guns? Did they apologize for causing undue stress? (sorry if you've alredy explained this). Apologize? No, but they did tell me to have a nice day. As far as I remember, they all had their guns unholstered but none were pointed at me. One interesting thing....when I came out of the van, I took the keys out and locked the van. At the time, I wasn't 100% sure but I figured if I did that they either had to get a court order or they needed me to cooperate and give them permission. When two approached me, the conversation started with me asking them to treat me as a citizen and I would fully cooperate and explain any question they had. That was the beginning of a beautiful friendship!  Anywho...I don't want to dwell on the event, but rather on the principles. Here is are a few question for you...and everybody else. IF you had the choice, would you risk the life a a few children to retain your privacy on the internet and mail?
IF you had a choice, would you risk the danger of a terrorist attack over intrusive personal searches?
If you had a choice, would you want to see cameras at every residential corner or live with the risk of more breakins? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 26, 2010 20:15:13 GMT -5
You know, none of this would have happened if you would stop wearing your Dryden goalie mask. He retired long ago. Dammit....I don't know why they stopped me. Just because I have a neon sign flashing out "Free Candy And Ice Cream", pictures of Che and Bin Laden hanging inside and some ropes, handcuffs and duct tape neatly lined up on a rack and dueling banjos on the 8-track, it doesn't mean I have evil intents.  |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 26, 2010 20:47:25 GMT -5
You know, none of this would have happened if you would stop wearing your Dryden goalie mask. He retired long ago. Dammit....I don't know why they stopped me. Just because I have a neon sign flashing out "Free Candy And Ice Cream", pictures of Che and Bin Laden hanging inside and some ropes, handcuffs and duct tape neatly lined up on a rack and dueling banjos on the 8-track, it doesn't mean I have evil intents. Leathers and whips, man ... you forgot about the leathers and whips AND the black mesh stockings. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by HABsurd on Jul 26, 2010 20:49:04 GMT -5
You know, none of this would have happened if you would stop wearing your Dryden goalie mask. He retired long ago. Dammit....I don't know why they stopped me. Just because I have a neon sign flashing out "Free Candy And Ice Cream", pictures of Che and Bin Laden hanging inside and some ropes, handcuffs and duct tape neatly lined up on a rack and dueling banjos on the 8-track, it doesn't mean I have evil intents. Flippancy aside. We live in a culture that is seemingly unable to assess risk. Thus we fall back to the position of "zero tolerance" and all the abuses that it entails. p.s. . Just be grateful the following movie hasn't been released yet. It's only going to get worse. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 26, 2010 20:56:55 GMT -5
Dammit....I don't know why they stopped me. Just because I have a neon sign flashing out "Free Candy And Ice Cream", pictures of Che and Bin Laden hanging inside and some ropes, handcuffs and duct tape neatly lined up on a rack and dueling banjos on the 8-track, it doesn't mean I have evil intents. Flippancy aside. We live in a culture that is seemingly unable to assess risk. Thus we fall back to the position of "zero tolerance" and all the abuses that it entails. Do you mean assess risk objectively? In your opinion, what would be the causes of that? Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 27, 2010 0:42:36 GMT -5
Dammit....I don't know why they stopped me. Just because I have a neon sign flashing out "Free Candy And Ice Cream", pictures of Che and Bin Laden hanging inside and some ropes, handcuffs and duct tape neatly lined up on a rack and dueling banjos on the 8-track, it doesn't mean I have evil intents. Flippancy aside. We live in a culture that is seemingly unable to assess risk. Thus we fall back to the position of "zero tolerance" and all the abuses that it entails. p.s. . Just be grateful the following movie hasn't been released yet. It's only going to get worse. Oiiii....and guess what was playing on the tube tonight? Freddie versus Jason. The entire point of having a Charter is to protect the citizens from arbitrary and/or abusive rules and laws. Since 9/11, it seems to me that society has swung in favor of ever increasing encircling of intrusive technology and tolerance to abuses to our rights. Benjamin Franklin wrote.... They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. |
|
|
|
Post by HABsurd on Jul 27, 2010 1:46:33 GMT -5
Flippancy aside. We live in a culture that is seemingly unable to assess risk. Thus we fall back to the position of "zero tolerance" and all the abuses that it entails. Do you mean assess risk objectively? In your opinion, what would be the causes of that? Cheers. Objectively is a loaded word especially as humans are so poor at judging risk. The hope would be that one could assess and tolerate a level of risk. That is why I find the term "zero tolerance" so dangerous. Especially when law enforcement take this literally and determine a course of action accordingly. On the issue of child pornography which always seem to arise in discussions of internet legislation we could bankrupt ourselves and give up all all rights to online privacy (I am thinking of jurisdictions where the government collects visited IP addresses from every computer) and the problem would still be with us. Perhaps, the onion makes my point better: www.theonion.com/video/truck-accident-that-killed-rafters-in-canyon-spark,17697/ |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 27, 2010 7:03:04 GMT -5
They wouldnt have needed a search warrant .... they already saw the machete and had probable cause to search for other weapons. My very expensive criminal lawyer said they didn't for the reasons I pointed out in another post. On the other hand, if you're cheaper, I'll hire you. If you took the time to visit or speak with a very expensive criminal lawyer (pro bono?) then I am left to wonder why you didn't proceed further ... if it is such an open and shut case. Now, I know the criminal code of canada is quite clear on the topic of "in plain sight' searches. This is why it is so hard to convict druggies and drunk drivers. Cause a police officer has to prove probable cause to pull you over AND then proceed to search your vehicle ... as a point of interest, if an officer does proceed to arrest or detain you, he can only search the general area where the evidence is found. In other words, if he arrests you in your living room, he can search the living room, he'd need a warrant to proceed up your stairs to your bedroom. If he saw a joint in your ashtray, he can search the cabin / glove box but would need a warrant to get you to open your trunk. You were in a cube van .. since the officer saw the "questionable item" when he walked up to you. The weapon (yes, a machete is a weapon) now gives the officer probable cause to search for more weapons in the general area where the weapon was ... the exact same reason an officer can search for drugs if he spots a joint in your vehicle. Maybe I am not understanding the story correctly ... but I don't think you have a leg to stand on under the Charter. Perhaps you could somehow argue that they went over and above .... but they authorites were well within their rights to stop and question you. The one area (that I still am hazy on) I have posed to friends with better legal minds than me (on this issue and similar ones ) is can an officer leave a scene and then use the "plain sight" argement for a search .... Would the fact that he let you get back into your van and proceed to go constitute the end of his legal right for a plain sight search? Did he have intentions of asking you to remain until he called back-up / witness and then you left beforehand ? I am not sure of the timeline in your story, but there's where your arguement lies ... |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 27, 2010 9:54:50 GMT -5
Do you mean assess risk objectively? In your opinion, what would be the causes of that? Cheers. Objectively is a loaded word especially as humans are so poor at judging risk. The hope would be that one could assess and tolerate a level of risk. That is why I find the term "zero tolerance" so dangerous. Especially when law enforcement take this literally and determine a course of action accordingly. Yeah, this is a good point. Objectivity can vary from person to person mainly because our perceptions vary. Still, I find there are those who understand exactly "how to interpret" the risk factor, so as to promote their own agendas. As an aside, though, I've worked most of my life for an organization that routinely judges risk very accurately. I like your reference to the term "zero tolerance." The term, itself, becomes a security blanket that alleviates one from any evaluation or decision. It's black and white and leaves no room for discussion. I watched the clip and it makes your point very well. I also got a good chuckle out of it. Thanks. You mentioned 'giving up all our rights to online privacy. Here's a true story about someone caught in a child pornography ring. I'll search for the link later, but this took place in the mid-to-late-90's, first in Ottawa, then again in Toronto. The RCMP approached me about one of the guys in my section. This guy was considered an IT expert back then (many can do what he does nowadays though) and they wanted to use his expertise in catching a government worker who they were sure was involved in child porn. After the chain of command gave the OK, they went to work and they ended up catching the guy right at his government terminal with subject material on his screen. Sometime later, the guy was released from jail or prison (don't know which) and was subsequently caught again for the same damn thing a few years later in Toronto. The guy who tracked down this creepazoid in the first place didn't work for me by this time, but I did drop him a line to see if it was the same guy. And sure enough it was. I don't know on what criteria the police decided to keep a tabs on this guy. Something made them suspicious in the first place and they took it from there. I guess the point I'm trying to make is, online privacy isn't as private as we like to think. While the term "Big Brother is always watching" applies to where I work, it also applies more than we think in the larger picture. And, for conversation's sake, what are the consequences if it didn't apply? Does this constitute an invasion of privacy? Does it creep into one's personal rights and liberties, even when it seems on the surface, as a preventative measure? Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 27, 2010 10:10:15 GMT -5
Since 9/11, it seems to me that society has swung in favor of ever increasing encircling of intrusive technology and tolerance to abuses to our rights. Check out "The Patriot Act" with you have time, HA. Here's a better story than "my right to carry my broadsword through a mall" one. Quebec City, February, 2009. In the parking lot of the le Gite hotel and goes along the lines of BC's story earlier in the thread. My buddy and I were finishing up a long day of instructing at CFB Valcartier. It was later in the evening when we finally got a chance to get out for supper. We get into our white Jeep Cherokee (OJ had a Bronco, so no jokes please guys) and before I could start it up I saw a headlights in my rear-view mirror come up to the jeep very quickly. One of the police officers started talking to me in French, while his partner kept the passenger-side door closed with his hand. We were totally trapped inside the jeep with officers on either flank. Once he found out I was English he asked me for the regular documents, went back to his car and got on the radio. His partner still kept my buddy from getting out of the car and I stayed where I was. When he came back, the cop asks, "... is this a rental?" I told him, yes, and that we were in town to instruct the troops on new gear. After everything checked out things cooled down considerably. They were looking for a similar vehicle and we weren't the one. After that they recommended to us where we might go for what it was we were looking for; chicken. "Don't go to Mike's, go here ..." (the best-buddy syndrome you referred to earlier). So, did we go on the road after that? Yes, we did. If we were going to get stopped again we'd deal with it then. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Jul 27, 2010 10:19:33 GMT -5
there's where your arguement lies ... Mine too. Why the RE-detention and why the (mobile and excessive) back-up? This reeks of a "rookie-cop" all the way. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 27, 2010 12:42:04 GMT -5
Since 9/11, it seems to me that society has swung in favor of ever increasing encircling of intrusive technology and tolerance to abuses to our rights. Check out "The Patriot Act" with you have time, HA. . I have Dis. And it's frightening. In the past, I have written in here about the junta in Greece and how my mother and I were held at gunpoint, on our knees, hands behind our heads while two cops rummaged our house. All at the ripe old age of 13. THAT left a deeply embedded mark on my soul. I do not trust govenments because it's inhabited by that alien, self-aggrandisng, lying species called politicians and I don't trust my fellow man not to change their mind like it's chewing gum. I like rules. Rules that stick and don't change with time or money. |
|
