rwx9901

jdw said:

MplsP said:

There are many people here posting about 'police states.' There is a big difference between a police state, in which the police have virtually unchecked power to do as they please, and the United States where the police power is very clearly regulated and limited by the courts. The simple fact that the police make or attempt a search that you might disagree with does not make it a police state. I certainly hope no one would argue that the police should never have the right/authority to search personal property - the constitution is clear on this as well. After that it becomes a question of how much authority they should have and how it is regulated. This question comes up on a daily basis in the courts across the country and cases routinely get thrown out. I don't think we should give up our right to privacy, but I do feel strongly that the police should have appropriately regulated authority to perform searches when necessary. I don't have a good answer for how that should be managed in the digital age.

And that's the crux.  YOU self-admittedly do not have an answer but instead are merely putting forth a defense of the status quo.  And all the while police can and do make searches at their good pleasure.  People get pulled over or searched all the time even if there is no good reason.  Whether that defines the US as "a police state" in the strictest possible sense is not so relevant.  What is relevant is how easy it is for you to be searched and then charged if you in any way give even the slightest hint you will not capitulate to their every demand.  That may not be a "police state" but it is borderline "oppression."  How is a demand to "Capitulate for the greater good!" in any way synonymous with "The Land of the Free"?  And I say this as someone who does not use drugs and who does not condone their use and who even tends to vote Republican.  Moreover, one of my brothers is a police officer and a very good man at that.  And I am well aware that the near endless number of laws and law enforcers we have is a direct result of the actions of bad people.  But at the end of the day FREEDOM isn't about what bad people do.  If we make a new law for every little bad thing somebody else does, the majority suffers a tremendous loss in terms of general FREEDOM.  Policing the public is no exception. Individual liberty should be prioritized by everyone in the US who calls themselves American.  Freedom is what defines genuine Americans.  Individual Liberty should always be put first, even at the risk of personal injury by having fewer laws and fewer police on the road.  We need both laws and law men, but just how many is the crux.  I contend that fewer is better than more, for all men, even good men, are flawed and make bad choices.  And the more power you give to someone (i.e., the police), the greater the offenses will be (keeping in mind they are always armed, have backup, and can inflict much harm on someone they are targeting).  The more laws and law enforcers we have, the more of a "police state" (or oppression of the populace) will be the norm.

As much as I respect law enforcers, I do not worship them like some do.  The term "worship" comes from the old English "worth ship" was implies how much worth we give to something.  My willingness to respect them doesn't extend to defending them in all situations.  Are they under attack daily?  Probably.  Do some die in the line of duty?  Yes, all the time.  But we must admit one important fact.  THEY CHOOSE THAT JOB!  They aren't drafted into serving.  And just because they serve, doesn't mean we must bow our heads in subservience to them.  They are public "servants" after all, doing that job out of their own free will, and they are monetarily compensated for it.  And if they come to dislike that compensation (which is the public's way of thanking them for the work they do), they can quit and find a less dangerous form of employment.  

Lastly, I must emphasize that it's stupid to do drugs, even "soft drugs" like Marijuana.  Even smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol is silly.  Heck, I don't even drink coffee, and no I'm not Mormon either.  Imagine if you legally smoke some drug in the US but then take an overseas trip.  Your habit could land you in jail or worse, which means it's best to avoid doing that particular drug at all.  Better safe than sorry.  But despite being that strict on drug use, I stand for individual liberty.  

You know you are a true proponent of liberty when you afford your neighbor more liberty than you would afford your own self.  I would never, ever do drugs.  Yet I hesitate to ban tobacco (even thought I HATE it and have an allergy to it) or alcohol (we tried that and failed) or even marijuana.  Patrick Henry was willing to choose death over the loss of liberty, whereas Americans today sadly are welling to sell their own soul for the mere "feeling" of added security.  It ought not to be so.  May we be respectful of the law and law enforcers while at the same time not hesitate to alter the status quo by eliminating unnecessary and harmful laws and reducing powers granted to law enforcers (e.g., body cameras are a part of that, helping keep their power in check).  Because absolute power corrupts absolutely, we must limit power granted to man, even those who enforce laws to regulate man.  The more checks and balances we have and the fewer crazy cases of "your under arrest for resisting arrest" the less of a police state it will be and the less oppressed the public will feel.

There is much more to be said on this subject, but here are some links for further study:

https://www.unlawfulshield.com/2018/07/the-basics-of-qualified-immunity/

https://youtu.be/mK0h1yfFQ7I

https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE