Nice article. Extremely accurate.
Lets go the next step. You have "had a few" and decide to walk home
from the neighborhood bar at 2 or 3 AM as a good citizen should. There
is NO ONE else on the streets. The city, town, county, state has seen
fit to do nothing in the way of encouraging you to do the right thing
like walk home and doing no harm.
Three blocks from the bar you step into the alley and take a whiz
behind the dumpster.... a cop sees you leaving the alley, and stops
you. he then goes into the alley and sees the "wet spot"..........
guess what ??? You are now and FOREVER a sex offender.
As is often said....
"Only in America", Land of the free.
On Jan 15, 10:49 am, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> Drunk Driving and 'Pre-Crime'?
>
> by Eric Peters
> EricPetersAutos.com
>
> Pre-crime used to be a sci-fi literature concept. But it's already our
> everyday reality. The fallout from the shooting in Tucson is going to
> make that very clear, very soon.
>
> But first, consider "drunk" driving.
>
> There was a time, long ago, when a driver had to actually cause an
> accident -- or at least, do something tangible that gave evidence of
> actually impaired driving, such as weaving over the double yellow or
> limping along at suspiciously slow speed. This was the probable cause
> needed by a cop to pull the suspect over.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> Then in the '90s we got (courtesy of Clintigula) the criminalization of
> drinking -- irrespective of our actual driving. The mere presence of
> trace amounts of alcohol in one's blood became sufficient to arrest a
> person for "drunk" driving -- even though all the person did was run
> afoul of a notoriously unreliable Breathalyzer machine.
>
> It did not matter that people process alcohol differently; that some
> people are much better drivers even with a little booze in their systems
> than others are completely sober. And more besides.
>
> Result?
>
> Most people now equate having "x" amount of alcohol in your system -- in
> ever-declining percentages -- with "drunk driving." It is an epic
> victory of demagoguery and propaganda.
>
> And it is also by definition an example of pre-crime. You haven't done
> anything -- but you're in trouble because of what you might do.
>
> Many readers will clamp shut their brains right about now and accuse me
> of defending mayhem and irresponsibility -- which is proof they've
> bought into the pre-crime argument at the deepest level possible.
>
> The merest potential connection; the flimsiest hint of possibility, no
> matter how tenuous or stretched. It's now all you need to be regarded as
> having actually done something.
>
> And to be treated accordingly.
>
> Having implanted itself deeply in the American mindset, we shall soon
> see an expansion of the principle.
>
> Already, less than a week after the fruitcake in Tucson did his thing,
> we have lawmakers equating criticism of the government or its
> representatives with acts of violence against the government and its
> representatives. It does not matter that the fruitcake did his deed
> because he's a fruitcake, or that we have laws on the books to prosecute
> actions such as murder.
>
> Soon, what will matter is what you think -- and more, what others (those
> in power) think your thoughts might lead to.
>
> To give voice to a sentiment such as "the government is corrupt and
> something needs to done," will amount to evidence of advocating violence
> -- perhaps even of committing violence -- much as a motorist who has
> consumed an arbitrary amount of alcohol is ipso facto a drunk driver.
>
> Consider: You are liable to arrest for "drunk driving" in America today
> even if you aren't driving at all. You merely have to be in your car --
> even if you're in the passenger seat and the car is parked. People who
> have had one too many and decided to sleep it off in their car have been
> arrested for DWI just the same as if they had been straddling the double
> yellow at 65 MPH with a gin and tonic in one hand and their left leg
> hanging out the window.
>
> The courts have said that drinking "x" amount of alcohol not only
> defines "impairment" -- it also amounts to intent to drive drunk,
> whether you're driving or not. And that intent -- imputed, perceived,
> ginned-up out of nothingness -- is what matters.
>
> Is it really a great leap to imagine that political speech -- hatriolic
> speech, as it is being styled -- will soon be treated the same way? That
> to say or even to think something -- anything -- that smacks of
> criticism of government and its flunkies will shortly be regarded as
> tantamount to shooting people?
>
> Gun laws -- and the TSA -- already operate on this principle.
>
> You have no record of criminal misconduct or mental illness. You're a
> taxpayer, a responsible citizen. Yet in several states (and of course,
> Washington, D.C.) you're assumed to have criminal intent, and thus,
> denied the right to own a firearm. If you possess one anyway -- even if
> you have done nothing with it to harm or even threaten to harm another
> person -- then you're subject to being cuffed and stuffed just the same
> as if you had actually used it to threaten or harm others.
>
> Pre-crime again.
>
> The TSA subjects people at random -- and en masse -- to rough and
> humiliating searches, including invasive physical pat downs, just like
> cops do to felony suspects. Not because of anything they've actually
> done or even hinted they may do but only because the TSA apes impute
> "terrorist intent" to anyone who desires to travel by commercial airplane.
>
> Ipso facto.
>
> Just like having a drink before you drive makes you a "drunk" driver --
> no matter how good your actual driving happens to be.
>
> We've upended perhaps the most basic concept of Western jurisprudence --
> that for there to be a crime, or wrongdoing, there must be an actual
> criminal act, or wrongdoing.
>
> But a society that embraced the tar baby of preemptive wars should not
> be surprised to wake up one day to find it is now also snuggling the
> concept of pre-crime -- with all its consequences. God bless America.
> Land of the Free.
>
> Throw it in the Woods?
>
> January 15, 2011
>
> http://epautos.com/
> --
> *This is my life. I make the rules.*
>
> *"It is incredible how as soon as a people becomes subject, it promptly
> falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedom that it can hardly
> be roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and so
> willingly that one is led to say, on beholding such a situation, that
> this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement."
> - �tienne de la Bo�tie*
>
> *Far too many good people rely on stupid ideas offered by amateurs who
> send out emails or hold weekend seminars! Jurisdictionary
> <http://www.jurisdictionary.com?refercode=CG0004> was created by a
> lawyer with a quarter-century of experience winning lawsuits by
> controlling judges and lawyers!*
>
> *I Refuse To Comply With The Unconstitutional Demands Of The Federal
> Government*
> *Read the US Constitution
> <http://amgona.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Item...>*
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment