What if the road block is for an Amber Alert? Is it wrong to stop you then too?
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
'and I can't imagine why you wouldn't welcome any change, my brother'
'How a culture can forget its plan of yesterday
and you swear it's not a trend
it doesn't matter anyway
there's no need to talk as friends
nothing news everyday
all the kids will eat it up
if it's packaged properly'
What if the road block is for an Amber Alert? Is it wrong to stop you then too?
Okay.
After giving this some thought,
i think i figured a way to make this right with the constitution, and the spirit of our liberty.
A roadblock for sobriety would be against a general or hypothetical harm. In fact, the very law prohibiting drunk driving could be considered as such, since you are not necessarily violating anyone's right by your actions.
Anyhow,
a roadblock to find a kidnapped child would be an act against a specific case of very real harm. Moreover, the kidnapping of a child is as obvious a case of fundamental rights violation as there is. That common law considers minors defenseless in their rights, makes it more plain.
One roadblock is an act aimed at negatively infringing on one mans right in protection of a hypothetical harm against another, and one aims exclusively at preventing a fundamental infringement against another's right.
In this consideration, and given the only loss of liberty to be claimed amongst those stopped is the loss of some modicum time, the distinction begins to seem reasonable.
This whole quandary led me back to a passage by Mills, which i think exemplifies the distinction, and further qualifies the case for an "amber alert" stop (providing, of course, the only outcome of the stops was the rescue of a child -- no other prosecution).
If anyone does an act hurtful to others, there is a prima facie case for punishing him by law or, where legal penalties are not safely applicable, by general disapprobation. There are also many positive acts for the benefit of others which he may rightfully be compelled to perform, such as to give evidence in a court of justice, to bear his fair share in the common defence or in any other joint work necessary to the interest of the society of which he enjoys the protection, and to perform certain acts of individual beneficence, such as saving a fellow creature's life or interposing to protect the defenceless against ill usage -- things which whenever it is obviously a man's duty to do he may rightfully be made responsible to society for not doing. -- J.S Mill, On Liberty
So again, as long as this stop is used solely to rescue a kidnapped child, it does have argument on grounds of both the child's liberty, and of man's duty.
There.
That should help me sleep better tonight.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Hopefully. a roadblock specifically for an Amber Alert would have everyone treated the same way.
I think it is wrong to leave it up to two uniforms to decide who looks okay or seems okay.
Profiling plays huge role in all of this.
There will always be a supposed greater good that will always subvert liberty.
Amber Alert aside.
I think that woman, on video, would have been treated differently if she was in a different car.
Comments
and i guess that's that.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
'How a culture can forget its plan of yesterday
and you swear it's not a trend
it doesn't matter anyway
there's no need to talk as friends
nothing news everyday
all the kids will eat it up
if it's packaged properly'
Okay.
After giving this some thought,
i think i figured a way to make this right with the constitution, and the spirit of our liberty.
A roadblock for sobriety would be against a general or hypothetical harm. In fact, the very law prohibiting drunk driving could be considered as such, since you are not necessarily violating anyone's right by your actions.
Anyhow,
a roadblock to find a kidnapped child would be an act against a specific case of very real harm. Moreover, the kidnapping of a child is as obvious a case of fundamental rights violation as there is. That common law considers minors defenseless in their rights, makes it more plain.
One roadblock is an act aimed at negatively infringing on one mans right in protection of a hypothetical harm against another, and one aims exclusively at preventing a fundamental infringement against another's right.
In this consideration, and given the only loss of liberty to be claimed amongst those stopped is the loss of some modicum time, the distinction begins to seem reasonable.
This whole quandary led me back to a passage by Mills, which i think exemplifies the distinction, and further qualifies the case for an "amber alert" stop (providing, of course, the only outcome of the stops was the rescue of a child -- no other prosecution).
If anyone does an act hurtful to others, there is a prima facie case for punishing him by law or, where legal penalties are not safely applicable, by general disapprobation. There are also many positive acts for the benefit of others which he may rightfully be compelled to perform, such as to give evidence in a court of justice, to bear his fair share in the common defence or in any other joint work necessary to the interest of the society of which he enjoys the protection, and to perform certain acts of individual beneficence, such as saving a fellow creature's life or interposing to protect the defenceless against ill usage -- things which whenever it is obviously a man's duty to do he may rightfully be made responsible to society for not doing. -- J.S Mill, On Liberty
So again, as long as this stop is used solely to rescue a kidnapped child, it does have argument on grounds of both the child's liberty, and of man's duty.
There.
That should help me sleep better tonight.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I think it is wrong to leave it up to two uniforms to decide who looks okay or seems okay.
Profiling plays huge role in all of this.
There will always be a supposed greater good that will always subvert liberty.
Amber Alert aside.
I think that woman, on video, would have been treated differently if she was in a different car.
peace