Quote:
Originally Posted by golfing eagles
What about the rights of the innocent victims of some lowlife that could have been stopped but wasn't because their feelings might be hurt, or they felt "targeted" or "profiled"?????? The framers of our constitution were much more concerned with limiting government power over LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, not criminals.
Rights that protect the innocent from incarceration, cruel punishment, Miranda rights----fine. Preventing the police from using their professional instincts to INVESTIGATE a particular situation---not so much.
There was a news show with a segment about casino security officers in Vegas. They asked one of them what he looks for. The answer was "I don't know, but I'll know it when I see it. Some things are just out of place." And this was just protecting the profits of a casino. Shouldn't we allow our professional law enforcement officers the same latitude to save lives. I just can't balance the inconvenience of being stopped and asked a few questions with injury and death from dangerous criminals.
|
When those professional instincts are wrong 88% of the time then those instincts should not be used as justification for anything. Also, see post #93.
__________________
Why do people insist on making claims without looking them up first, do they really think no one will check? Proof by emphatic assertion rarely works.
Confirmation bias is real; I can find any number of articles that say so.
Victor, NY - Randallstown, MD - Yakima, WA - Stevensville, MD - Village of Hillsborough
|