From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Repost from alt.beer(Beer laws in Texas)
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:46:53 GMT

In <exuptr.728.0@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Sunbird a la 400ci) writes:

>In article <1993Jan15.164904.22137@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
>>Subject: Re: Repost from alt.beer(Beer laws in Texas)
>>Date: 15 Jan 93 16:49:04 GMT

>>In article <exuptr.630.0@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:
>>>>>I'm for the preservation of individual rights, but I think these rights are 
>>>>>abused a lot these days.  We should ask the question, "If you don't want to 
>>>>>have screening, why not?  Are you afraid they will catch *you*?"
>>>
>>>>No, this is exactly the question we SHOULDN'T ask.  
>>>
>>>Gee, why not, Fred?

>>Because it is a stupid question which implies that people are guilty
>>of criminal behaviour simply because they disagree with your position.

>Hmm, I think in some cases you might find it to be true, whether it's true 
>for you or not.

Of course it's true in SOME cases, Jim.  The point is, you are making
the assumption that it is true in ALL cases, and that's absolute crap.
And yet you object to the similar assumption that you must be
interested in revoking the Constitution, since you seem to favor it in
this one situation, to be offensive.  Are you surprised that so many
people find the attitude you express here (about "they only object
because they're afraid THEY will get caught, so if they object it's
because THEY are driving drunk") offensive?

>>Is it so unusual to you that someone might take a position out of
>>PRINCIPLE rather than self-interest?

>Yes, it is.  Frankly I find a large number of self interested people out 
>there today.  Maybe you're not one of them.  I don't really know you well 
>enough to say.

Ok, so what's your self-interest in this?  You want an entering wedge
to institute OTHER illegal searches and seizures, for OTHER 'good'
reasons?  

>>[Do you like that last question?  It is the only reasonable response
>>to the question you want to ask.]

>I thought it was a fair one, but I don't agree that it is the only 
>reasonable response.  Perhaps you meant the only reasonable response from 
>your viewpoint.

No, I mean the only reasonable response TO YOUR viewpoint.  Since you
find the idea of objections in principle so unlikely to believe, does
that mean that you don't have any?  If you do, why do you find it so
unlikely that other people have some, too?

>>One might take the same position on ANY violation of rights.  You're
>>opposed to warrantless searches and wiretaps?  Why?  Are you afraid
>>they'll catch you?

>I just don't see much harm in a *small* sacrifice to save lives.  Wiretaps 
>and the like require just cause (and some paperwork of course), and stopping 
>cars should also.  But I think Saturday night on Greenville Avenue is just 
>cause, especially if they find a large %age of violations.

"Those who would give up freedom for security are deserving of
neither." -- Benjamin Franklin.

Simply being in a public place is *not* probably cause.  If that were
the case, the police could stop you at any time, search you, etc.
They can't.

>>It never ceases to amaze me how many AMERICANS don't seem to
>>understand what is wrong with the kind of reasoning you're suggesting.

>What does nationality have to do with it?

Because this is a country that was FOUNDED on certain rights and
principles, and the kind of reasoning you're using quite frankly flies
in the face of all that.  A lot of good men have died to try to
preserve the kind of government we have, and here you are wanting to
piss it away a bit at a time.  Rather leaves me wondering what I spent
those years out there in uniform playing target for.  To preserve a
system of freedom that some 70% or so of the people who live under it
want to piss away, piece by piece, in the name of expediency, the "War
on Drugs", to stop "them".  Bah!

>>I have to wonder just what the hell they're teaching in civics and
>>government classes these days, when people don't even understand the
>>basic principles of the Bill of Rights.

>I understand them, but I don't blindly agree with all of it, or with any one 
>person's interpretation.  Life is full of choices, balances, and the like.  
>If you want to stop alcohol deaths, you must give up some degree of "
>freedom" (in this case the freedom not to be licensed-checked) in order to 
>reduce the number of dead persons.

See the Franklin quote above.

>BTW, did you realise that 2/3 of the people killed in D/D accidents are not 
>the drunk driver, but the other persons?  This is a Plano statistic, so 
>don't start arguing with me about California or Bosnia or somewhere else.

>>>Why should people die because of some marginal viewpoint of what your rights 
>>>actually are?

>>Your 'question' is an absolute non-sequitor.  
>Weren't you the one telling everybody there were no absolutes?   Anyway 
>that's ridiculous.  We're all still talking about the Constitutionality of 
>license-checking, and the point is relevant in the way that I meant it.

So you throw away the Constitutional prohibition against search and
seizure without warrants if someone happens to be in a motor vehicle.
What's next, Pat?

>>There is nothing
>>'marginal' about the opinion that Americans are SUPPOSED to be secure
>>from unreasonable searches and siezures of their property and persons
>>and that they cannot be coerced into providing evidence against
>>themselves.  Now, which part of the Bill of Rights is it that you want
>>to suspend again?

>None.  We just disagree about what is unreasonable, period.  If you're going 
>to insist still that I am suspending the Constitution, then fine, but it's 
>only because we interpret 'unreasonable' differently, and for no
>other.

It has nothing to do with 'unreasonable'.  By your reading, then, it's
"probable cause" to stop someone and check them just because they
happen to be in a particular place where it is otherwise legal for
them to be, when there is no evidence of a crime?  Well, how about
simply instituting a police policy of harassing blacks, long-hairs, or
Christians?  After all, we all know that they're prone to certain
types of behaviours.  That's 'probably cause' to stop them and search
them.  

Where does it stop, Pat?

>>Hey, I've got an idea for you.  Saudi Arabia has just the kind of
>>despoty without rights that you seem to favor.  They have capital
>>punishment for drunk driving, and absolutely prohit alcohol.  Not to
>>mention there are none of those mess 'marginal' rights to get in the
>>way. 

>Go pound sand in your ass.  :-)

Sorry, but I was serious.  You cannot imagine how outraged I feel at
this kind of attitude, after seeing friends die out there defending a
way of life that you people apparently don't even know enough to
appreciate. 

>>>Who is disallowing rights to what disagreeable group here?  Seems to me the 
>>>suggestion was fair and not based on any agreement or disagreement to any 
>>>philosophy or doctrine.

>>4th Amendment
>>        The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
>>houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
>                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but
>>upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
>>particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or
>>things to be seized.

>Bingo.

>>Now then, given a total lack of both probable cause and of a warrant,
>>do you still fail to see why random stops or sobriety roadblocks are a
>>violation of the Constitution?  

>I just don't agree with your givens.  How many times do I have to say it?
>Are ye deef?

Are you, as well as stupid?  Simply being somewhere is NOT probable
cause unless a crime can be shown to have been committed and there is
reason to believe that the person being stopped and searched has
committed it.  You can't make probable cause by POSTULATING that a
crime MAY be being committed, and that therefore you can stop
EVERYONE.  Well, you can in some countries, but I find it pretty sad
the number of people who seem to support having that kind of police
state here. 

>>It's one thing if someone is weaving
>>all over the road.  That's probably cause for a stop.  However, merely
>>being behind the wheel of a car at a sobriety roadblock is NOT
>>probably cause to suspect someone of driving while intoxicated.

>Ok, fine.  But you have yet to realize that *this* is your opinion and is 
>_not_ part of the Constitution.

Horseshit, Pat.  What 'probable cause' do you see?  Just because
someone happens to be in a car on the road?  Then let's just outlaw
driving except by police and have done with it, shall we?  How about
random and warrantless searches of homes because we know what hte
statistics are on domestic violence?  How is that different?

>>And neither, might I add, is disagreeing with people who want sobriety
>>roadblocks. 

>It's certainly not proof, but it adds to the suspicion level, IMHO.  I guess 
>I'm not a very trusting person, but life has borne me out many a time.

Then all I can do is feel sad about YOUR lack of principles, that you
find them so unlikely in others.

>Just ask yourself this question:  Have I ever driven under the influence?  
>Is it even conceivable that I endangered someone else's life?  Is my right 
>not to be stopped in a "high-risk" area greater than someone else's right 
>not to have me kill their entire family if I screw up?

By this reasoning, no one should be allowed to drive, period.

>You may not agree, but if you face these questions honestly, you'll at leat 
>know where I'm coming from.

I know where you're coming from.  I'm simply appalled that you cannot
understand that there are a lot of people who are going to object to
your subversion of the principles of the Constitution ON PRINCIPLE.
You're not that unusual in that, but that doesn't make it any better. 

What other bits of freedom do you think people need to 'give up', and
now you can worry about all those self-interested people who would do
it to you, now that you've established a nice precedent for them.
Hey, we could always suspend religious freedoms.  After all, some of
those cults and stuff are DANGEROUS.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics