Tuesday, May 23, 2006

It's just stomach-churning

Reason has an excellent post today about something every IL resident should be informed of. My commentary on the matter resides in his "comments" section.

3 Comments:

Anonymous Isaac T said...

My wife and I were discussing this today. She had a question that I bring up solely to get your opinion. What do you think would have happened had he said, "I am legally carrying an unloaded pistol," and not used, what could be conveyed as a belligerent and aggressive response (keeping in mind the post-911 hysterian)? The truthfulness of his statement is not in question, nor the stupidity of the authorities greatly overstepping their bounds (if his story is the way it happened). I just wonder if the result would have been the same? Keeping in mind that this is totally hypothetical (so we'll never know the truth), what do you think?

23/5/06 9:51 PM  
Blogger Reason said...

Let's postulate for a second what would have happened if the guy would have just told the mall ninjas that he had a (lawfully stowed, unloaded) gun in his fanny pack, instead of asserting his right to be free of unreasonable search. Do you think that just because he was open about it that the rent-a-cops would've just said, "Oh, okay. Carry on." I don’t' think so. If he'd have waived his rights, he'd have one less infringement to sue on, and the plastic-badged wana-be's would have one more instance of violating someone's rights without resistance.

I think he did the right thing. I also don't think that anything he said (if the account is accurate) could be construed as belligerent OR aggressive. I suppose the “none of your business” could’ve been softened up a bit. I guess I’d have to see a transcript.

The point is, if we don't know and stand up for our own rights, who will?

24/5/06 9:09 AM  
Blogger M1Thumb said...

Tough call. Since he was cornered, I doubt there was any good way out of it. The sad reality is that they probably would have slammed him up against the wall and deprived him of his rights/dignity/property. I think one major thing plays into the futility of any explanation: The rent-a-cops and actual cops either didn't KNOW the law or didn't CARE that he wasn't breaking the law. In their minds it was a crime. So they were bound to abuse their power and arrest him on false charges no matter what. THAT is what's so scary to me. You don't even have to be in violation of the law to be detained/arrested/booked/prosecuted. Pathetic.

24/5/06 9:26 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home