djthomas wrote:
And that is true as far as a criminal trial goes where the burden of proof is the highest. But we're not talking about what what happens at trial. We're talking about what happens long before that point. On the side of the road, if you will. A place where the adjudicators of the Fourth Amendment have shown a strong deference to the safety of those we direct to handle these situations.
Agreed. The legal community has "shown a strong deference to" Officer Safety over the Rights of the Citizen on the side of the road. The point is to show how some disagree with Wynn that this is just/appropriate/proper.
See, the law on the side of the road is just as applicable as it is in the courtroom. This idea that there are different laws depending on if you're on government property or in the presence of a government official is absurd. The law applies to all, equally, for the protection of the Rights of the People (does it matter where you're standing?). I recognize the natural reluctance of judges to rule "against" law-enforcement, far easier to grant new and exciting exemptions to the laws the rest of us need to follow under threat of ultimately lethal force isn't the role of the judiciary. Applying the laws equally, is the proper role of the judiciary.
For the life of me I fail to understand how people in the 2A community think that they're not the indirect (if not direct) targets of these rulings, and therefore justify them. The idea that when you step onto the hallowed ground of a hospital, school, government office, church, etc, you're gun-toting becomes felonious is not only outrageous, but hypocritical to the role that these places should play in service to the citizenry. Yet, we whistle along happily.
djthomas wrote:Our system only requires that a law enforcement officer have reasonable suspicion to lawfully stop and detain a person. It then only requires probable cause to make an arrest. Neither of these standards require a witness to testify under oath and this is entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment.
Understood. Why do we require testimony to be under oath, punishable by perjury? Because we want to dis-incentivize/criminalize false testimony. But when anybody with a pulse can call and make a report that sends the armory to a certain location, we shrug our shoulders with a "meh"? Shouldn't there be a slightly higher standard when it comes to your previous idea that we're taking "unreasonable" off the table and now we allow search/seizure with impunity? Wouldn't that be more consistent with the principle we're invested in?
djthomas wrote:Is it unfortunate that people have died at the hands of law enforcement while detained for reasonable suspicion? Yes, of course it is, but on the whole the system works.
For whom?
Dismissing the death of innocent citizens because "on the whole the system works" would be just as tone deaf as dismissing/accepting the unfortunate death of a few cops by saying "on the whole the system works". Not an argument. But your comment does demonstrate how comfortable people are with Officer Safety > Citizen Liberty.
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908
Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.
"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798